MUD_ Dissertation _University of Westminster by Destiny Conely

Tactical urbanism: an approach for addressing

social and management challenges in mixed-tenure housing development neighbourhoods

University of Westminster (MA) Urban Design Course Leader . Bill Erickson Supervisor . Krystallia Kamvasinou Student . Destiny Conely W1725645 Written Dissertation . 2020

ABSTRACT There are many debates about the impact of social dynamics and management practices within mixedtenure housing developments in urban regeneration areas. Critics believe these challenges cause conflict and tension between various stakeholders and explain the need for interactive resolutions. This dissertation examines the challenges within mixed-tenure housing developments while exploring new venture resolutions through the lens of tactical urbanism. The research demonstrates tactical urbanism as the new model for improving the social value between residents, managers, developers, and city officials in mixed communities. The propose of this study is to generate tactical programs that embrace social balance, communication, discussion, and civic engagement for all stakeholders.

DEFINITION OF TERMS For clarification, the key terms used in this specific study are defined as follows: Affordable housing— housing for households consuming income at or slightly below the median income of a specific society; sometimes referred to as intermediate housing for individuals who comply in the middle between the poor and wealthy in society Community development(s)— the collective term for other development types (besides mixedtenure developments), as indicated within the research study such as city revitalisation and affordable housing developments Euclidean Zoning—a regulation initiated by the 1922 Act to reduce overcrowding, congestion, crime and protect public health, which led to the rise of suburbia Macro-level— powers influence by council or city government (state powers) Market-rate housing— housing for households consuming the above-average income of a specific society (owners or renters), sometimes referred to as high-income or private housing Meso-level— coalition organizations by government, profit, and non-profit entities (regional power) Micro-level— powers influence by citizens or residents within a community (local power) Mixed-tenure communities or mixed-tenure neighbourhoods— the area surrounding a mixed-tenure housing development by providing services, commercial facilities and social infrastructure Mixed-tenure housing developments [MTHD(s)]—a housing facility or complex made up of various unit types accommodating a range of low to high-income households (social, affordable, and market-rate tenants), which sometimes includes different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Public housing— the name of government subsidised establishments within the United States of America; sometimes referred to as low-income housing Residents— individuals who live in a mixed-tenure housing development or mixed-tenure community (neighbourhood). Social housing— the name of government subsidised establishments within European countries; sometimes referred to as low-income housing Tactical–-referred to strategic small-scale actions or solutions taken to address or analyse a situation or issue (ranging from short-term to long-term change) Tenants–- the name, mainly used by Europeans, for renters or owners living in a mixed-tenure housing development Temporary–- referred to physical moments or actions displayed within a limited period (mostly short-term change)

IMAGE LIST FIGURE 1: Bishop and William’s theoretical questions from Case B

CHART 1: Collective Critic list of the challenges and resolutions for mixed-tenure housing developments 17 CHART 2: Major advantages and disadvantages of using tactical urbanism to address MTHD challenges 25 CHART 3: Sample questions for the Debriefing Exercise session

DIAGRAM 1: The Design Thinking 5 Step Process is a guided tool by Street Plan Collaborative for producing tactical urbanism projects

DIAGRAM 2: Proactive vs. Reactive tactical urbanism projects

DIAGRAM 3: Multiple Case Study Methodology

DIAGRAM 4: Mixed-tenure development recommendations and propose tactical urbanism projects

IMAGE 1: Estate in IJburg, Amsterdam courtyard—measures, such as wooden beams and prickly plants, to reduce noise from children playing

IMAGE 2: Seaside, Florida continuous 1982 tactical urbanism project Farmers market 21 IMAGE 3: Street painting at the Public Square tactical urbanism event in Seattle

IMAGE 4: 1970’s image of the first built woonerf street

IMAGE 5: The woonerf concept: landscape or architectural design protrusions to slow down traffic

IMAGE 6: Downtown Grand Prairie Vision Building Blocks

IMAGE 7: Trailer home turn into an affordable tiny house

IMAGE 8: Moshin’s Woodberry Down Estate interview questions

IMAGE 9: Proposed market area and street furniture at Woodberry Down Estates

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: INTRODUCTION 10

WHY MIXED-TENURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS?

1.1 THE GOAL 11 1.2 AIMS & OBJECTIVES 12

PART II- LITERATURE REVIEW

MIXED-TENURE HOUSING IN URBAN REGENERATION

14 15

2.1 HISTORY 15

2.2 CRITICISMS & CHALLENGES

2.3 STAKEHOLDERS 16

2.4 UK POLICIES & GUIDELINES

TACTICAL URBANISM 20 3.1 THE ORIGIN 20 3.2 METHOD & PROCESS 20

PART III- METHODOLOGY & ANALYSES 26

METHODOLOGY 27

4.1 MULTIPLE CASE STUDY METHOD

4.2 CRITERIA & SELECTION PROCESS

4.3 INTRODUCTION OF CASE STUDIES

CASE STUDIES 30 5.1 CASE STUDY A: Tactical Urbanism for Downtown Revitalisation 30 5.2 CASE STUDY B: Tactical Moments of Creative Destruction for Affordable Housing 32 5.3 CASE STUDY C: Focusing on the social in regeneration of social housing estates: Woodberry Down Estate 33

MULTIPLE CASE STUDY ANALYSES & DISCUSSION

6.1 ANALYSES 36 6.2 DISCUSSION 37 6.3 CONCLUSION 38

PART IV: RECOMMENDATIONS

TACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

7.2 BETTER SOCIAL, COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITIES

PROJECT A— Tactical Approaches for Collaborative Communities (TACC)

PROJECT B— Tactical Approaches for Social Sustainability (TASS) 50

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX A: GUIDED QUESTIONS 57

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES 58

PART I: INTRODUCTION

WHY MIXED-TENURE DEVELOPMENTS?

There has been an insurgence within the process of urban regeneration in mixed-tenure housing developments [MTHD(s)] and its impact on social integration, management leadership, and community infrastructure (Nouwelant and Randolph, 2016). According to Nuwelant and Randolph, the objective for better, balanced communities produces exclusive environments, which causes conflict, tension, and segregation amongst residents living in MTHDs. For example, there has been tension and conflict within a new mixed-tenure development project in New York City (NYC). The regeneration mixed tenure development project, near the East River in Long Island City, Queens has caused friction between the existing public housing residents at New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) Queensbridge housing establishment and real estate developers. Policies were enforced by the NYC Department of Planning to accommodate at least 50% of public housing residents (Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, 2020), including Queensbridge housing, with affordable housing at all new regeneration developments. However, the existing Queensbridge residents are refusing to move into the new development; thus demanding, to remain in their development and requesting improvements and repairs for public housing amenities (Justice for All Coalition, 2020). As a Queen’s resident and architectural designer, I am curious to understand why Queensbridge residents refuse to move into a new mixed-tenure development; when research suggests that public housing tenants receive better services, higher quality amenity space, and greater employment chances (Stewart-Leslie, 2018). Therefore, I created a series of questions in response to this recent incident: Why would NYCHA tenants not want to move into the ‘new’ MTHDs? Could this be because of the difference in socio-economic status, culture, and perception between public and market-rate housing residents? Could there be history of altercations and complicated relationships between MTHD stakeholders (policymakers, developers, managers, and residents) ? Are there policies and guidelines set in place to encourage public housing residents to integrate with market-rate housing residents; vice versa?

How can a mixed-tenure development embrace new and existing public residents in the community? These questions and more are the fundamental reasons beyond my research topic and investigation on mixedtenure housing regeneration developments and their surrounding neighbourhoods. 1.1 THE GOAL The concerns for more inclusive neighbourhoods has led to new policies addressing the issues and promoting new methods for mixed tenure housing (Stewart-Leslie, 2018). For example, the New Deal for Social Housing document responds to the concerns of social housing tenants through proposed aims for a more inclusive and fair system. (Secretary of State for Housing, 2018). However, there are debates on whether these political objectives provide solutions towards a balanced community, which adheres to the initial goal for mixed-tenure developments. This thesis explains the challenges within mixed-tenure housing regeneration developments while evaluating tactical urbanism principles & methods to improve the development process. The goal is to introduce a better inclusive process for all stakeholders involved in MTHDs in the United Kingdom by providing design tools for urban regeneration developments, through the means of tactical urbanism projects. Part I of the dissertation discusses the history, debates, and criticisms about mixed-tenure housing developments in urban regeneration areas of western society. Part II features the top critical themes and debates amongst MTHD literary research –social integration & lack of management leadership due to discriminatory practices. The next section analyses the United Kingdom’s design policies and guidelines for improving social dynamics and management systems in MTHDs. This is followed by an introduction to Lydon and Garcia methods of tactical urbanism and how this approach promotes social values between various stakeholders while enhancing social interactions and services in MTHDs. Part III introduces the multiple case study methodology for analysing the outcomes of several case studies with community development challenges and tactical urbanism recommendations or solutions.

The dissertation concludes, in Part IV, with recommendations for establishing tactical urbanism approaches that benefit residents, developers, managers, and policymakers in the MTHD process. 1.2 AIMS & OBJECTIVES The aim(s) for the topic research is to acknowledge the challenges & criticisms within MTHDs in urban regeneration communities while recommending methods to improve the process for essential stakeholders. By discovering policies and approaches in comparison with stakeholders perspectives, the research justifies the objective for establishing tactical solutions that increase the social dynamics and build better management practices in MTHDs.

PART II: LITERATURE REVIEW

MIXED-TENURE HOUSING IN URBAN REGENERATION

2.1 HISTORY The origin of mixed-tenure housing neighbourhoods varies within different countries in western society, yet current issues and challenges remain the same. Before the 1930s, the United Kingdom (UK) created social housing for working-class citizens, with no negative connotations, in response to the overcrowding in the cities (Gregory, 2009). Following WWI, poverty and slum conditions arose; thus, the demand for more social housing and the beginning of negative perceptions surrounding public poor and government subsidised communities (Gregory, 2009). The destructive mentality of the slum lead to the migration of higher-income tenants, which resulted in lack of resources, minimal funding, and discriminatory practices in UK estates leading to urban regeneration—the demolition of existing areas, mainly unfit for human habitation (known for low employment levels and high relative poverty) and their replacement by new development (Gregory, 2009). In contrast, the United States (US) of America’s public housing neighbourhoods generated during the decline of manufacturing industries in the 1930s and included Caucasian middle-class families (Jupp, 1999). Over time, lower-income families (mainly minorities) moved into the establishments, while the middle-class (Caucasian) families relocated into the suburbs, known as the white flight of the 1960s (Jupp, 1999). The US government began to practice discriminatory racial acts by not adhering to the resident’s social needs and ignoring economic investment in public housing (Jupp, 1999). To eliminate the stigma and stereotypes of those living in the slum, the UK and US government created the idea of mixed communities within urban regeneration projects (Gregory, 2009). By the 1980s, the UK established private and public partnerships within social housing estates (Gregory, 2009), while the US developed the Inclusionary Zoning policy (Local Housing Solutions, 2020) as a response to improving the urban communities. The Inclusionary Zoning policy is a mandatory or voluntary regulation to integrate affordable units (a range of low to middle-class status) and market-rate units into a regeneration community (Local Housing Solutions, 2020). Both countries share the same goals to social mix housing developments and neighbourhoods with a range of incomes and households with hopes that the affluent would act as positive role models and create strong friendship ties with the social housing residents (Gregory, 2009). The initiation to create a magical, harmonious community can seem far-fetched

in today’s era, where so many individuals have different lifestyles and perspectives. Holman argues the theory that “richer people may somehow have a better culture for influencing low-income families” should not be the approach for developing mixed-tenure neighbourhoods (Jupp, 1999). He suggests that policymakers should focus on income comparisons and re-evaluate their stigmas and stereotypes of social housing tenants (Jupp, 1999). Even though the goal is to eliminate the historical evidence of social exclusion, policymakers should consider reinterpreting the aims for mixed-tenure housing developments to embrace the positive attributes of lower-income tenants. Policymakers continue to portray a positive image about the social network contribution of mixed-tenure housing; however, studies show that respondents knew little about the residents with a different tenure than their own (Jupp, 1999). The expectation that market-rate and social tenants will spontaneously communicate despite the lack of social interaction opportunities in the MTHDs seem unrealistic and impractical. A social sustainable mixed-tenure community should encourage diversity by understanding multiple perspectives and respecting various viewpoints through the restructuring of housing policies.Yet, before reforming policies, government entities must acknowledge the challenges and criticisms of MTHD communities to configure promising solutions. The next section examines the problems within MTHDs and their surrounding neighbourhoods. 2.2 CRITICISMS & CHALLENGES Over the past decades, critics have given their feedback to the success and failures of mixed tenure neighbourhoods. Allen (et. al, 2005) acknowledges the benefit of avoiding concentrations of poverty in building mixed communities. There is an opportunity to eliminate the statistics of unemployment in social housing by spreading the wealth between tenures and households in a community; thus, creating the original purpose for balance. In comparison, Jupp (1999) adds insight about the environmental contributions of MTHDs, where new sustainable innovations could improve deprived neighbourhoods by re-establishing local businesses and creating new green spaces for healthy, safe, and economically secure environments. However, there are plenty of disadvantages to creating a mixed community or development. Gregory (2009) mentions the lack of social integration and how the communities are “not mixed in the deepest sense”. 15

“In the deepest sense” focuses on establishing diverse communities of all lifestyles and backgrounds exemplifying equity and equality. Unfortunately, minimal attention has been given to MTHDs social housing residents, typically those who are existing residents of an urban regeneration neighbourhood, to ensure their involvement in decision making. The scarce factor of social dynamics amongst residents in MTHDs have also led to rectifying problems around stereotypes and stigmas between class and race (Jupp, 1999); the very issue that politicians wanted to eliminate. The ideal of an all-embracing social entity may not be a realistic policy for some but could be the beginning for addressing the root issues around prejudices between stakeholders. The urban institute concluded that there is not enough evidence of social interaction between social and market-rate neighbours in MTHDs and minimal evidence on the social residents benefiting from employment or “social capital” via help from their affluent neighbours (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2015). It is evident that there is a problem with the social dynamics amongst tenants, neighbours, and possibly other stakeholders, of mixed tenure communities and policymakers are still avoiding ways to address this rooted issue. Another challenge is the need to improve management practices and neighbourhood social services in MTHDs. As mentioned earlier, many of the urban regeneration projects are in partnership with private developers and are often designed and managed to allure higher-income consumers (Read and Sanderford, 2017). In this case, the private sector intervenes to maintain the expenses by keeping the market-rate tenant on board and ignoring the concerns from the social tenants. As a result, management generates restrictive regulations for social tenants, while developers create neighbourhood services and amenities catering towards higher-income tenants. For example, urban regeneration areas create mixed communities with expensive supermarkets accommodating higher-class residents. The critical element is for managers, developers, and policymakers to consider social residents and their way of life when regenerating mixed-tenure communities. Other problems regarding MTHDs are highlighted within literature, such as the lack of reinforcement of policies and agreements & the re-evaluation of ‘true’ tenure blindness (SEE CHART1). These problems allow developers to minimise the social housing component in a mixed-tenure development and cluster lower-income housing units for ease of management or belief that these units will be hard to sell (Gregory, 2009; Read and Sanderford, 2017). However, this thesis discuss the initial two common criticisms in literary review and the perspective among stakeholders regarding social interaction and management practices. 16

2.3 STAKEHOLDERS The first step for improving social dynamics and management services in MTHDs is to examine essential participants and their perspectives about the community and process. The participants and sponsors of mixedtenure establishments include social to market-rate residents, private sector developers and investors, and management organisers. The reason behind social tension and mismanagement steams from perceptions and stereotypes between various stakeholders. According to Gregory (2009), social residents tend to perceive market-rate owners to be arrogant and controlling when proclaiming management authority, due to their financial status. A foreign social tenant at an estate in IJburg, Amsterdam expressed how she felt that the higher-income owners had haughty attitudes and did not understand their (social tenants) family’s way of life (Tersteeg, et al., 2015). Her response is in reaction to the market-rate owners and management noise restriction and “no football” policy for children in the communal yard (IMAGE 1), which was directed towards the social tenant children in the development (Tersteeg, et al., 2015). The study indicates that most of these children were social housing tenants who migrated from non-western European countries and could not find a close play space in proximity to the development. Typically, non-western Europeans practice cultural family values that may differ from traditional European family principles (Lum, 1995). If only management and market-rate owners understood the social tenant’s concerns about more space for play areas and embraced their cultural differences, then there could have been a better, comprehensive solution. However, the owners continue to perceive lowerincome tenants as ‘abnormal’ individuals who share different lifestyles than the ‘normal’ neighbour (Tersteeg, et al., 2015). These prejudices resulted in a segregated community, which defends the need for more social cohesion and development between diverse backgrounds. However, in defence of the market-rate owners, social tenants should respect the idea that some households enjoy a quiet atmosphere. Therefore, the management team should negotiate a fair policy or social programme accommodating both social and private tenants. Developers view MTHDs as neighbourhoods with lower land prices for higher market-value and known for categorising social tenants as weaker value consumers on the property (Gregory, 2009). The social units are sometimes located far away from neighbourhood facilities and limited access to affordable social services and amenities (Moshin Khan, 2018).

CHALLENGES

RESOLUTION

LACKING SOCIAL INTEGRATION

INTERVENTIONS TO CONNECT TENANTS

Not mixed in the deepest sense…just in a physical sense

Full social and physical integration

Individuals having negative stigmas and perceptions of one another Inadequate representation of historically marginalized groups who once lived in the mixed community

IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS, PRACTICES, & SERVICES

Management favoritisms towards higher-income residents causing tension between the low-income and high-income residents Projects controlled by the private sectors are designed and manged to appeal to market-rate consumers

Interventions to reconnect stakeholders Embrace participatory planning processes that search for common values among stakeholder groups Implement programming designed to bring people together in the hopes of building community and trust

HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT APPROACH Management delivers services and proactive outreach programmes where necessary Managers and developers thinking beyond marketing and providing these services in correlation with the Council Provide social residents with better access to public services and other resources Incorporate attractive common areas into residential neighborhoods to encourage informal interactions Manage resident rules in a fair and consistent manner

LACKING REINFORCEMENT OF POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS Developers wanting to restrict public housing for political reasons. Mixed-income housing projects benefiting real estate interests and affluent members (Gentrification) Short term financial interests compromise the long-range planning objectives of municipalities

POWER TO THE AUTHORITIES Authorities must be given, and required to use, greater powers in enforcing agreements Create opportunities for long-term residents to remain in their neighborhoods after urban revitalization Clearly articulate collaboration between government & private sector Define a system which MTHDs are expected to value the under-served

CHART 1: Collective Critic list of the challenges and resolutions for mixed-tenure housing developments (Gregory, 2009; Read et. al 2017;Jupp, 1999; Allen et. al, 2005)

CHALLENGES

RESOLUTION

LACKING ALTERNATIVE BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS

EFFECTIVE PRIVATE-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS

Lacking in an alternative supply of private & public partnerships

Establish a small number of joint venture for public-private home builders

Attracting private investment without public intervention due to profit motives

Promote capital market accommodating housing development in diverse urban neighbourhoods Ensure projects are visible and exposed to public options

LACKING TENURE BLINDNESS

POLICY FOR TENURE BLINDNESS

Segregated clusters of social housing units and market rate units

Tenure distinctions should be made less visible and relevant

Majority of developers cluster social housing believing falsely that the social lease-hold units will be hard to sell

Provide the policy of ‘pepper potting’ – when private and social residents live next door to each other with hope to remove perceived social distance

SERVICE CHARGES FEES

INCENTIVES OF SERVICE CHARGES TO PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS

Public housing tenants struggle to pay service charges, causing social landlords to reduce services in order to keep charges down

Service charges should be claimable on Housing Benefits Incentives for the private households who contribute more financially

CHART 1: (continue)

Rarely, have there been studies on the property developer’s perspective about social tenants, but it seems that the stereotype of people from the ‘slum’ environment still resonates with developers, today. In comparison, managers usually give market-rate tenants more say and voice on MTHDs property due to their higher financial contributions to the development (Gregory, 2009). The idea of favouritism continues to segregate housing by type and causes controversy among residents; thus, reinforcing the stigmas and labels about social and affluent tenants. Mix tenure, by itself, does not guarantee social capital success and growth. Therefore, policymakers are starting to generate inclusive, mixed community guidelines that address these issues, while introducing methods and strategies for respecting all residents, especially social tenants, and promote social investment programming for a well-balanced community.

tactical urbanism projects and principles which promotes dynamic social values, such as respect and empathy, while figuratively building community facilities and improving management practices, leadership, and services in MTHDs. The future relies on a policy programme that brings all stakeholders together, formulating collective action to prevent anti-social behaviours and embrace shared space through civic engagement commonalities (Design Council, 2020).

2.4 UK POLICIES & GUIDELINES The first recognition for an inclusive mixed community policy is described in the UK Planning Policy Statement 3 of 2009 indicating the need for change in social, sustainable communities in urban and rural areas (Gregory, 2009). However, the policy ignores the concerns for social interaction and management practices. By 2011, the UK government pushes the mixed idea further through the Localism Act, where local citizen engagement take precedence over “topdown” government initiatives by influencing “bottom-up” neighbourhood planning, strategies, and policies (Reeves, 2014). Furthermore, the Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Act encourages developers through incentives to build inclusive amenities for social housing residents (Reeves, 2014). Even though civic engagement is encouraged and developers start to contribute to public needs and facilities, the solution to address the antisocial behaviour at MTHDs was still not prevalent in UK policies and guidelines. Finally, city officials created a stand to promote social interaction between people who might not contact with each other [in mixed communities] under the National Planning Policy Framework— section 8 (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019). By acknowledging the repeated research that mixed-tenure has not generated social dynamics for the “so-called” balanced life, policymakers are starting to ask the right question on how to guarantee social connections in MTHDs. The new deal for Social Housing report further demonstrates how community engagement and leadership convert into a series of new models and principles functioning as programmes incorporating social interaction and generating a sense of pride across housing tenures (Secretary of State for Housing, 2018). I am suggesting that this new model already exists through the lens of

IMAGE 1: Estate in IJburg, Amsterdam courtyard— measures, wooden beams and prickly plants, to reduce noise from children playing (Tersteeg, et al., 2015)

TACTICAL URBANISM

3.1 THE ORIGIN 20th century U. S. is known for producing mega design projects by planners and designers, such as public housing developments and shopping malls due to market demand (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). However, these extra large projects of capitalism and government power excluded the user’s point of view, and thus, acknowledged concerns about the public planning process. In response to the distrust and neglect, citizens began to formulate grassroots design organisations to enhance their community. By the 21st century, a new era of design emerged, which focuses on small tactics while serving significant strategies (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). This citizenry participatory method is known as tactical urbanism –- an interactive, temporary public engagement development process, led by tactical urbanists (community co-creators, planners, artist, etc.), in response to inadequate policy and physical design (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). The method is used as a tool to quickly access resources through creative measures and analyse plans while promoting social interaction and empowerment (Lydon and Garcia, 2015; McGuire, 2017). In addition, it is also an action tool that addresses the tension between multiple stakeholders by developing a better, responsive environment. Meanwhile, this idea is to execute creative actions and design by responding to community concerns within a major large-scale project, such as the social dynamics between stakeholders and discriminatory practices by managers in mixed-tenure communities. Other benefits of tactical urbanism include decentralisation (i.e. removing single administrative authorities by reallocating power to the bottom-up), increasing social capital and network such as diversity, inclusion, better resources, and the ability to create lowcost budgets (Lydon and Garcia, 2015; McGuire, D. 2017). The original upsurge of tactical urbanism is due to the significant urban trend of inner-city growth, the Great Recession of 2008, the rise of the internet, and the growing divide between top-down and bottom-up entities (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). Today, it is obvious that parallel trends still exist in western cultures, such as the COVID–19 recession. The COVID–19 recession is an economic decline that may result in another world-wide financial downturn—similar to the Great Recession of 2008— due to the corona-virus pandemic global lockdowns and shut-downs (King, 2020). Another continuous trend is the disconnection between government and 20

citizens, such as the systematic racial discrimination protests due to the awakening of the Black Lives Matter movement (Yancey-Bragg, 2020). Furthermore, the recent challenges of COVID–19 and social injustice could affect future social structures between stakeholders and the process of development within MTHDs. For example, research indicates that it may take years to recover economically from the COVID–19 recession, depending on the rate of infection and unemployment (Bokat-Lindell, 2020); hence, the urgency to adopt new approaches like tactical urbanism. The tactical urbanism method can create lower-cost projects within a substantially short time for urban improvements and collaborations due to strained resources and finances. This effective method could improve cities while mending the prejudices between cultures through interactive design programming. A tactical urbanism project acts as an all-inclusive solution used to initiate new places, developments or help repair existing ones (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). This method is beneficial for MTHDs incorporating a variety of residents and act as a flexible tool for encouraging social cohesion. Tactical approaches are future solutions for designing developments on a small scale while repairing the communication between stakeholders in a community. 3.2 METHOD & PROCESS Tactical urbanism is a conceptual mixture of strategy and tactics, where the municipal leaders arrange a plan for obtaining a specific goal, and the civic participants implement expedient temporary action (Lydon and Garcia,, 2015; Dictionary.com, 2020; McGuire, 2017). Both are equally valued and vital to the everyday practice for bridging the gap between government, developers, and citizens for urban regeneration mixed communities. The tactics and strategies can either be accomplished with permission (sanctioned) or without permission (unsanctioned) to achieve a project as determined by the masses (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). Sanctioned tactical urbanism projects require help from municipal tacticians through a collection of processes and organised programmes (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). ). Lydon and Garcia (2015) recommend using the sanctioned approach on large scale projects, which are typically located on the city property, with moderate funding and need for numerous resources. The Seaside, Florida New Urbanism Project is an excellent example of a sanctioned way to incorporate tactical urbanism while initiating new

development proactively. The seaside project, led by design professionals, is an experiment testing out the inherent qualities of the Seaside, Florida neighbourhood by creating an open market with temporary structures for existing residents (SEE IMAGE 2) (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). Through support from local government and businesses, the designers were able to promote the new plan, understand the everyday rituals in the community, and built lasting partnerships for future development (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). In the case of a mixed-tenure urban regeneration development, local government can support policies that create design features through a tactical urbanism programme, such as an outdoor market built by residents in a mixed-tenure community. Furthermore, a successful project includes a leader implementing open dialogue and addressing stigmas or stereotypes about the community, thus, taking a step further from Seaside by including a debriefing section during the built project. This method is also a useful marketing tool for testing user’s reactions and dynamics in capital funding projects before construction (Lydon and Garcia, 2015)— a benefit for developers, investors, managers, and policymakers in mixed-tenure neighbourhoods.

However, sanctioned projects may take many months or years to see results due to the rigorous details and liabilities (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). Therefore, urbanists should consider the unsanctioned approach. Unsanctioned tactical urbanism projects should only occur after pursing all sanctioned channels, or when authoritative leaders seem unwilling to adhere to the concerns of the people (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). Moreover, this method could address management’s unresponsiveness to social tenant’s problems within MTHDs. Furthermore, these projects are quick, reactive tactical responses favoured by community participants. For example, in the Woonerf Project (IMAGE 4), Dutch citizens took matters into their own hands and redesign their neighbourhood street (called woonerf) in response to the growing problem of traffic and safety (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). Eventually, their design gain attention from the Dutch government and is now known as the woonerven street design standard (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). The woonerf project proves that an unsanctioned process can become sanctioned practice encouraging bottom-up innovation to inform the course for top-down initiatives.

Design Thinking Principle According to Lydon and Garcia (2015), there are five “design thinking” principles valuable for producing successful tactical urbanism projects—Empathise, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test (SEE DIAGRAM 1). Each phase is designed for empathising and understanding the context of a problem through creative visions and resolution by rationalising analytical solutions.

IMAGE 2: Seaside, Florida continuous 1982 tactical urbanism project Farmers market (SoWal Beaches, 2013)

IMAGE 3: Street painting at the Public Square tactical urbanism event in Seattle (Sebeck, 2017)

IMAGE 4: 1970’s image of the first built woonerf street (Jeff, 2017) 21

Providing the Relative Advantage factor for social residents within the brainstorming decision process and considering the sensitivities surrounding urban regeneration incompatibility with mixed communities will improve the exclusivity challenges within MTHDs. This step also gives developers and policymakers the tools to create simple and test worthy tactical urbanism projects or programmes encouraging diversity. The fourth Design Thinking step is to plan a quick, feasible project to move the action and ideas forward, which is also known as the Prototype phase (sometimes called the IMAGE 5: The woonerf concept: landscape or intervention or pilot phase depending on the tactical architectural design protrusions to slow down traffic approach —Lydon and Garcia, 2015). In this phase, design (Biddulph, 2002) professionals or community activists will implement the action by developing a project plan, schedule, funding, The first action, Empathise, encourages the tacticians to permits (as needed), and materials with project partners understand whom they are planning and designing for to ensure short-term intervention for a long-term by asking thoughtful questions about the community’s change (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). The goal is to align concerns (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). This step includes the project time-line with the council or government approaching participants who do not usually involve political cycle and budget process, with the hope that the themselves in conventional planning, such as marginalised tactical urbanism intervention will support the overall groups in mixed communities. Next, all must come vision. For example, an urbanist could present a twotogether to Define a specific site or location and establish day chair bombing tactical urbanism programme for the root causes of the problem(s) (Lydon and Garcia, designing seats at a new outdoor market in a potential 2015). For urban regeneration mixed-tenure communities, urban regeneration mixed community. The idea of the this could be a plethora of problems (as discussed programme is to unite existing and potential residents in Chapter 1) that raises awareness on the pressing together through a social and physical Do It Yourself (DIY) challenges throughout the neighbourhood. It is essential design experiment. The urbanist will present their plan to know that creating a resolution can be complicated; for action at the council’s quarter budget meeting and therefore, the solution should incorporate collaborative indicate how the intervention will promote attention for social values in response to the common cause. Once the council 25-year urban regeneration master plan and the group identifies the problem and the site, they should help mend the social gap within the current community. proceed to the Ideate process, where brainstorming With the approval of the council, the urbanist will exercises is divided amongst groups through research continue with the final Design thinking step—Test. The and development (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). This step purpose of the testing process is to gather feedback by of tactical urbanism introduces the credibility for action following the build-measure-learn collaborative, where through Everett Roger’s 1962 Diffusion of Innovations individuals observe the tangible results and impact by (Lydon and Garcia, 2015): documenting the tactical pilot or prototype (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). In efforts to measure the project criteria, Relative Advantage: the project provides an advantage over Mariko Davidson expanded Lydon and Garcia’s practical the status quo for an identified group of people theory by introducing guided questions for each section of the Design Thinking 5 Step approach—SEE APPENDIX Compatibility: the project is compatible with its social and A: GUIDED QUESTIONS (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). physical context Simplicity: the project can be easily understood by the population Trialability: the project can be tested quickly and replicated elsewhere Observability: the project is visible to many others and will attract use and attention 22

STEP 1: EMPATHISE Understand the audience Observe the people in the project area Be inclusive by acknowledging all lifestyles and backgrounds of people

STEP 2: DEFINE Identify the root causes of the problem Pick a specific area or site to conduct the project

STEP 3: IDEATE

DESIGN THINKING

Do your research about the area or site (seek a professional for help)

A 5 Step Process for Tactical Urbanism

STEP 4: PROTOTYPE

(consider hiring a design professional for help) Plan a project that can be quickly, inexpensively executed Identify partners to provide resources and volunteers, if needed Create project schedule Research funding and local resources to help with the materials

Develop creative ways to address the problem Brainstorm project ideas

STEP 5: TEST

(Use the build-measure-learn process to collect feedback) BUILD- develop process (steps 1-4) and observe the results MEASURE the success and learn from the failures- create a value system or criteria for the project; a checklist of the outcomes (E.g. new residents will understand the cultural history of the community) LEARN- document the project by use of photos, videography, etc… & reflect the outcomes

DIAGRAM 1: The Design Thinking 5 Step Process is a guided tool by Street Plan Collaborative for producing tactical urbanism projects (Lydon and Gracia, 2015)

Stakeholder Benefits As discussed explicitly in the previous section, the tactical urbanism method can be an excellent tool for responding to MTHD challenges and concerns (CHART 2) . Therefore, this leads to the question of what are the benefactors of social interaction and managerial improvements in tactical projects? For residents and citizens of mixed neighbourhoods, tactical urbanism promotes empowerment, ownership, and responsibility (Lydon and Garcia, 2015; McGuire, 2017) by giving those who feel excluded a representational voice in their community. For developers and managers, it offers a tool for collecting information from the community they intend to serve (Lydon and Garcia, 2015), and thus, giving them the ability to improve their managerial skills by understanding their existing & new consumers. For example, this tactical approach could be used for the tenant allocation process by observing and communicating with potential residents during a project to understand the tenant’s perspective about the mixed tenure neighbourhood. In comparison, tactical urbanism is a means to execute and test design practices quickly, which benefits government officials (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). Therefore, this enables the opportunity to test projects for users to engage in forthcoming developments without losing money or time— being proactive versus reactive. Furthermore, this tactical strategy helps to improve relationships while testing key objectives and responding to challenges within mixedtenure communities. How to Response to Challenges The approach for implementing a tactical urbanism project can be proactive or reactive (DIAGRAM 2) depending on the situation or dilemma in an MTHD. Meanwhile, this method is used as a proactive instrument to widen the range of public engagement or testing potential planning aspects and also, as a reactive tool when drawing attention to shortcomings in policy or procedures in development. Part III discusses the outcomes of proactive & reactive tactical urbanism projects and temporary interventions in community developments. Using the multiple case study method, Chapter 4 examines different tactical approaches to improve MTHDs.

ADVANTAGES

DISADVANTAGES

Promotes empowerment, ownership, and responsibility for residents

Individuals use their self-interests to ignore the overall vision

Creates opportunities for social engagement between multiple stakeholders

Projects only focus on the awareness of an issue instead of implementing social or systematic change

A Tool for collecting information from the community where managers, developers, and city officials intend to serve

Projects may centre around architectural value, alone, and forget the importance of social value

A means to execute design practices quickly & test projects for government officials Encourages inclusivity within community developments Small- term tactics complementing long-term goals

CHART 2: Major advantages and disadvantages of using tactical urbanism to address MTHD challenges (Ozanne et al., 2018; Lydon and Garcia, 2015; McGuire, 2017)

REACTIVE

PROACTIVE VS Tactical urbanism projects for experimentation or testing users and their reaction to a potentially, new community Mostly sanctioned Typically led by top-down structures (city officials, developers, sometimes managers, etc…)

Tactical urbanism projects responding (or reacting) to a policy or procedures Mostly unsanctioned Typically led by bottom-up influencers (citizens, residents, etc…)

DIAGRAM 2: Proactive vs Reactive tactical urbanism projects

PART III: METHODOLOGY & ANALYSES

METHODOLOGY

4.1 MULTIPLE CASE STUDY METHOD In this section, a multiple-case study was conducted to examine how the tactical urbanism method addressed the needs for mixed neighbourhoods and community developments. By using Yin’s (2018) multiple-case study method (SEE DIAGRAM 3), the discoveries of several theoretical and experimental case studies were analysed by applying tactical strategies to solve community development challenges. The multiple-case study methodology develops a base for a convincing argument that tactical urbanism approaches serve as a tool for complementing mega projects and systems compared to MTHDs. The multiple-case embedded technique (i.e. the selection of 3 or more cases with several units of analysis) predicted outcomes and demonstrated the why and how of this research proposition (Yin, 2018; Adolphus,2020). 4.2 CRITERIA & SELECTION PROCESS The research began with investigating mixed-tenure communities with experimental case studies in the UK. However, there is limited research on case studies that used tactical urbanism as a tool to improve MTHDs, which directed the study towards a new criteria. The re-evaluated criteria included a range of developments and communities across western societies that used tactical urbanism or similar methods (such as temporary urbanism) as tools for improvements. The goal was to explore case studies that created responses within a community development process. Furthermore, the selection process of each case study included several requirements with measurable criteria, such as the assortment questions below:

From there, five sample case studies were selected, which eventually narrowed down to three cases focusing on tactical urbanism and its influence in a community. These cases portrayed similar issues of MTHDs urban regeneration neighbourhoods, such as the lack of civic engagement to encourage social activity and inclusivity, while providing tactical or temporary approaches and solutions. The replicable studies provided collected data notes on the whys and hows and analytical outcomes on using tactical methods in community development. The research concluded with comparable patterns and crosscase analyses to help establish an appropriate solution for improving MTHDs. 4.3 INTRODUCTION OF CASE STUDIES As indicated in DIAGRAM 3, Case A (CA), Case B (CB), and Case C (CC) are all cases with mega development projects and challenges by incorporating comparable outcomes and solutions. CA focused on the benefit of creating a tactical urbanism programme for the downtown revitalisation of Grand Prairie, Texas. However, CB exploited US legacy structures, on micro to mesolevel scales (particularly, government housing forms) that limits the opportunity for tactical innovation in affordable housing. Case C investigated ways to improve the social dynamics between residents in mixed-tenure urban regeneration estates & neighbourhoods in north London and compels relatable research to the dissertation topic. The researcher concludes that temporary inventions, through the means of accessible, connective, magnitude, and inclusive public space, improves opportunities for social cohesion in mixed communities (Moshin, 2018). In addition, each case study provides comparable and contrasting discoveries while highlighting the importance of tactical urbanism solutions.

A.What are the problems or issues within the development or community case study? Do the issues resemble patterns like the MTHD challenges of management improvements or social interaction between stakeholders? B. Does the outcome focus on management improvements, social cohesion, stakeholder engagement, or inclusive opportunities? C. Are there solutions about tactical urbanism or a similar approach?

CASE A (CA) Tactical Urbanism for Downtown Revitalisation

Tactical urbanism programmes to initiate the downtown revitalisation at Grand Prairie, Texas

THE CASES Three case studies focused on tactical urbanism in macro-level community development

RESEARCH QUESTION

CASE B (CB) Tactical

Moments of Creative Destruction for Affordable Housing

How can tactical urbanism be used as a tool for addressing challenges in mixed-tenure housing developments and neighbourhoods?

Tactical innovations to improve the US affordable housing system

THE PROTOCOL

(cases must include following) There is are problems or issues within the development or community case study. And the issues resemble patterns like the MTHDs challenges of management improvements or social interaction between stakeholders. Outcome focus on management improvements, social cohesion, stakeholder engagement, or inclusive opportunities Solutions are about tactical urbanism or a similar approach

DIAGRAM 3: Multiple Case Study Methodology by Yin (2018)

CASE C (CC) Focusing on the social in regeneration of social housing estates: Woodberry Down Estate Temporary interventions to enhance the social dynamics in mixed-tenure urban regeneration estates in London

DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES CA & CB exploring macro-level structures inabilities to include community engagement and innovations CB & CA generating studies on inferiority disputes between socioeconomic classes

CROSS CASE ANALYSES

ALL issues pertaining to exclusivity in a development process

TACTICAL URBANISM SOLUTIONS

(similar approaches like temporary urbanism) CA & CB provide macro-level and meso-level tactical urbanism for testing and experimentation CC develops temporary urbanism interventions responding to social behaviours in mixed communities

CONCLUSION Tactical urbanism uses small-scale approaches complementing long-term development goals that help promote inclusivity in communities similar to MTHDs

Solutions to improve the social construct of the development process while encouraging civic engagement

COMMON THEMES Provided inclusive opportunities in community development Explored how small tactics can work on a macro-level Emphasized physical design solutions, but limited research on social value resolutions

DIAGRAM 3: continues

CASE STUDIES

5.1 CASE STUDY A: Tactical Urbanism for Downtown Revitalisation CA:Topic Brief The Tactical Urbanism for Downtown Revitalisation case study focused on how tactical urbanism complements as a proactive method for experimentation to revive the downtown of the City of Grand Prairie, Texas. Researcher, Savannah L. Ware, is a five-year planner of the City of Grand Prairie Downtown Task Force (Ware, 2017), who explored alternative approaches to city-building and bridging the gap between planning theory and practice in order to implement the city’s downtown plans while creating methods for consuming frugal resources (Ware, 2017). Similar to the historical dissentients of US urban housing, urban downtowns throughout America experienced a financial decline and inactivity due to decentralisation (Ware, 2017). However, the 21stcentury return of mixed neighbourhoods and walkable urbanism revamped the downtown renaissance through attractive streetscapes, pedestrian activity, and new investments (Ware, 2017). The first action for downtown Grand Prairie was to restore the historic theatre and performing arts centre, while investing in a $1.2 million Market Square in order to generate economic growth and attract people into the neighbourhood (Ware, 2017). However, these isolate implementations lacked holistic strategy and coordination, where project impacted selfinterest without contributing to a master downtown revitalisation plan. Ware (2017) acknowledged the efforts for creating a coordinated plan under the Grand Prairie Downtown Task Force. Could temporary uses be a manifestation of the emergence of a more dynamic, flexible, or adaptive urbanism, where the city is becoming more responsive to new needs, demands and preferences of its users? Can temporary activities be enabled, planned, or designed to harness the city’s positive characteristics without stifling its creativity? FIGURE 1: Bishop and William’s theoretical questions from Case B (Ware, 2017)

She implied the need to ignite the project’s momentum during the development of this new coordinated plan (Ware, 2017). Therefore, the solution was to establish a framework containing three phases through the lens of tactical urbanism to address the city’s lack of resources and implement a formal master plan. According to Ware (2017), tactical urbanism promotes civic engagement within the planning process and acts as a tool for assisting with governmental time restrictions and constrained public resources. By using Bishop and William’s theoretical ideals and questions (SEE FIGURE 1) on temporary urbanism. Ware (2017) discovered how tactical urbanism stimulates investments and renews the urban fabric through incremental modification and “creative problemsolving” (Ware, 2017; 27p). Other benefits for applying tactical urbanism in downtown revitalisation is the ability to reactivate vacant land through the process of physical action, community teamwork, and personal creativity; thus, challenging the conventional process of planning and changing people’s perceptions about a place. Ware (2017) explains these benefits when discussing the District of Columbia of Planning (DCOP) Temporary Urbanism Initiative in the Washington, DC area —a tactical programme filling the gaps of vacant lots and abandoned store fronts with architectural features and activity in disadvantaged communities (Ware, 2017). Not only did the initiative activate empty spaces, but it also allowed the citizens to create visions while changing negative perceptions affiliated with the neighbourhood. In addition, it encouraged existing tenants to recognise the potential of the location (Ware, 2017). Tactical urbanism has proven to be a non-threatening approach for effective planning practices and creative solutions and has served as a framework for future development processes to engage communities while generating economic vitality with limited resources. CA: Methodology & Outcomes Case A followed the mixed methods approach and accomplished a (3) phase activation tactical solution to complement the revitalisation of Grand Prairie’s downtown. As a city employee under the Downtown Task Force by City Manager’s Office, the researcher was able to practice observed community meetings and obtained government documents with quantitative & qualitative information about the downtown (Ware, 2017).

Although, there was limited research done on citizen engagement and perceptions about the downtown, Ware (2017) acknowledges the need for more qualitative research in city planning. She also had the opportunity to collaborate & brainstorm with various professional departments, such as Grand Prairie Economic Development and Police Academy departments, on the Task Force, which eventually led to a Downtown Redevelopment Workshop presentation to the City Council (Ware, 2017). The presentation identified a collective vision to create a strong identity and sense of place by activating the heart of a city through active streetscape for Downtown Grand Prairie (IMAGE 6) (Ware, 2017; 58p). Under the headline active streetscape, the Task Force highlighted tactical urbanism as a tool for encouraging local investment and building momentum through impactful actions (Ware, 2017). Furthermore, Ware (2017) decided to extract this sector and expound on the theories and methods of tactical urbanism in downtown revitalisation, which evolved into a guided framework document for the Downtown Task Force team entitled Activate Downtown. Activate Downtown is displayed as a separate document in the case study, which respond to the financial and marketing challenges of recreating an inclusive, vibrant downtown for Grand Prairie (Ware, 2017). The goal is to create small projects or sites, such as a Farmer’s Market or DIY pedestrian project, and initiate the “bigger picture” objective by reiterating the theme of short-term goals for a long-term change.

owners to participate in a downtown pop-event where local businesses (retail, restaurants, etc.…) showcase their work to attract people to the area (Ware, 2017).

According to Ware (2017), the city has started to introduce tactical programmes such as the Main Street Façade Improvement Programme, where downtown property owners offer financial assistance for municipal powers to make improvements towards their buildings in order to complement the existing architecture while promoting walkability. However, this (3) phase project encourages all stakeholders to participate in the restoration of downtown. Phase 1 & 2 layout the tactical urbanism guidelines for policymakers, managers, and developers, while phase 3 provides a tool available to the public. The first phase uses three demonstration projects to stimulate downtown and attract stakeholders (Ware, 2017). For example, the Demonstration Project 2 (Interim Civic Plaza) is a temporary installation testing out design concepts while getting users excited about future development (Ware, 2017). A similar approach for a new MTHD could be to initiate a community outreach programme in a mixed-tenure neighbourhood in order to observe how people interact with each other in shared spaces and their reactions to the new community. The second phase encourages city partners and business IMAGE 6: Downtown Grand Prairie Vision Building Blocks (Ware, 2017) 31

Furthermore, the event compares to a street fair, which is possibly to be implemented in mixed-tenure neighbourhoods. This phase also benefits the city by encouraging developers and real estate professionals to invest in downtown (Ware, 2017). The third phase (known as Activation Overlay) inspires the public to initiate a tactical urbanism project to the revitalisation of downtown (Ware, 2017). Ware (2017) states that people would have the opportunity to contribute a tactical project by applying to the city for review, and thus, advocating for civic engagement and power in the downtown neighbourhood. Ultimately, all three phases demonstrate downtown Grand Prairie’s potential to be an exciting destination that engages a variety of stakeholders and collective ideas to attract investment for future development. CA: Conclusion Ware (2017) demonstrates a valid argument, through Activate Downtown, on how tactical urbanism revives a downtown, generate investors, and bring momentum to future revitalisation efforts. However, the projects only included proactive sanctioned interventions directed by government officials compared to the unsanctioned practices led by citizens in the community. Although it was considered a sensitive topic in conventional planning, Phase 3 could have expanded on how citizens use their voices to address unresponsive issues by municipal powers. Despite this contract, tactical urbanism works more effectively (and financially) if driven by city planning practices that enable people to make informed design decisions. Ware tactical approaches tackle the lack of stakeholder and council support in revitalisation projects and examine the possibility for better collaborative design processes.

5.2 CASE STUDY B: Tactical Moments of Creative Destruction for Affordable Housing CB:Topic Brief Case B focused on the housing market and explored how the US historical context, public policies, and cultural values (known as legacy structures) hindered innovation in new affordable housing systems (Ozanne et al., 2018). The authors discussed new social practices through tactical moments and illustrations of temporary solutions that help meet the demand for affordable housing. These interactive methods of creative destruction create opportunities for innovation within four specific areas (Ozanne et al., 2018) while dismantling the existing corruptive housing system. Ozanne et al. (2018) explain 32

the US history of Euclidean Zoning (SEE DEFINITION OF TERMS) and its emergence into socially constructed, predictable, and controlled legacy structures. These structures limit the vision for a more innovative housing system and repress rules and regulations. The problem is that macro-level zoning policies have created discriminatory social consequences, such as racial and socioeconomic segregation, which reduces the quality of life (Ozanne et al., 2018). As a result, underprivileged neighbourhoods and financially deprived communities struggle to deliver affordable housing— similar issues seen in MTHD urban regeneration communities (Ozanne et al., 2018). However, obstructing bottom-up adaptations, where participants challenge legacy structures with tactical means, allows for a better integrated, affordable housing system. According to Ozanne et al. (2018), this implies a cooperative union between micro-level experiments and meso-level contributions delivering tactical urbanism projects to help kick-off the evolution of the affordable housing process. The project benefits include a rapid beta testing approach celebrating diverse ideas while solving problems through grassroots efforts (Ozanne et al., 2018). An example of micro to meso-level tactical actions is the Portland, Oregon’s Dignity Camp grassroots protest, where homeless people illegally set up tents on vacant land and were forced to relocate regularly by authoritative decision-makers (Ozanne et al., 2018). Nevertheless, through media attention and community support, the camp finally got permission to permanently relocate their community on an unused territory, which eventually merged into a non-profit organisation operating on a regional level —called Dignity Village (Ozanne et al., 2018). Even though these moments of tactical urbanism facilitate the organisation of social networks, actors may compete for personal gain while ignoring the master objectives. Ozanne et al. (2018) argues that self-interest perspectives could reoccur in micro-level platforms, however, actors typically cooperate to retrieve a common cause. Therefore, focusing on collective smaller projects as tactical moments balances the responsibilities within mega projects while providing a platform for testing and experimentation in development systems. CB: Methodology & Outcomes The methodology applied in Case B was discoveries from secondary research and quantitative data from literature reviews. In comparison with Case A, Case B fail to include qualitative research extrapolating personal views on government structures and the residential experience in affordable housing. Based on their research, Ozanne et al. (2018) discovered four creative destructions to stimulate change in the affordable housing systems—go smaller, more is merrier, let’s get moving, and growing organic families.

Go smaller is a DIY approach for building units to address population density crisis and adapt to the new growing small household population in America (Ozanne et al., 2018). By using the testing tool (a proactive approach) of tactical urbanism, designers erect temporary buildings to address inadequate and unaffordable urban housing, such as the My Micro NY initiative, which promote microapartment complex accommodating individuals in small households in NYC (Ozanne et al., 2018).

public and private entities. In conclusion, Ozanne et al. (2018) highlight the challenges of social behaviours and policy practices within specific legacy structures while recommending tactical urbanism as a solution to innovate temporary change for long-term systemic restoration to the affordable housing crisis. Case B equips policymakers with tools to enhance civic engagement through betatesting experimentation and coalition building.

More is merrier acts as a reactive approach in response to restrictive zoning regulations. For example, activists may encourage legislators to extend the time restrictions for tiny homes (similar to a mobile home) owners to camp all year-round instead of several months within a year (Ozanne et al., 2018). Even though this method does not implement the practices of tactical urbanism, the researcher provides a practical recommendation for loosening regulations to accommodate today’s living arrangements and lifestyles. Let’s get moving is another reactive method responding to the socially constructed negative affiliations with trailer homes or traveling homes in America (Ozanne et al., 2018). The goal is to established new social arrangements and perceptions around the creation of mobile homes. Ozanne et al. (2018) suggested that DIY tactical urbanism sanctioned techniques(supported by city officials) creates hand-crafted, locally-made tiny homes (SEE IMAGE 7) to replace trailers. This method helps to tackle the housing demand and introduces new ways to construct affordable housing units. The growing organic families recommendation is a programme response to the 21st-century family household, such as Co-housing services that allow unconventional families to share housing costs and duties (Ozanne et al., 2018). This approach acts as a useful idea that encourages the growth of the non-traditional family, however, it is not indicated as a tactical programme. These four creative tactical moments may not all contribute to the ideals of tactical urbanism. However, they provide DIY ideas for testing new methods and introducing tactical urbanism as innovative tool for affordable housing. CB: Conclusion By the end of the study, Ozanne et al. (2018) discuss the negative attributes affiliated with the tactical urbanism. The approach may only focus on the awareness of an issue instead of implementing social or systematic change (Ozanne et al., 2018). Therefore, the meso-level power is needed to support micro efforts interconnecting both

IMAGE 7: Trailer home turn into an affordable tiny house (Bryce, 2019) 5.3 CASE STUDY C: Focusing on the social in regeneration of social housing estates: Woodberry Down Estate CC:Topic Brief Case C focused on the redevelopment of social housing into mixed-tenure developments in London. The purpose of the study was to explore the social dynamics and lack of integration between residents within mixed neighbourhoods (Moshin, 2018). Moshin (2018) identified the missing research for addressing social cohesion challenges and concerns in the literature and proclaimed a similar need in MTHDs for socially sustainable interactive design elements, to encourage social interaction between residents. By using the Woodberry Down council estate regeneration project, Moshin (2018) aimed to create public spaces that promote integrated diverse communities and ignite socialisation between residents. Moshin (2018) described the history of urban regeneration in London as a scheme to revive the 1970s social housing estate through private entities, and thus creating a new concept—entitled mixed-tenure developments (Moshin, 2018). Moshin (2018) criticised the urban regeneration decision-makers for using “mixed neighbourhoods” as a ploy to avoid the label of gentrification while ignoring the social problems within the community (Moshin, 2018). This criticism is the result of four social dilemmas in regenerated estates: avoidance, disconnection, inferiority, and isolation (Moshin, 2018). 33

Avoidance relates to social distance and conflicting relationships with neighbours due to the unwillingness to live together because of barriers, such as language or differences in lifestyles (Moshin, 2018). Disconnection is the feeling of being excluded from a once-familiar territory that has changed without communicating with the existing community (Moshin, 2018). This problem aligned with the MTHDs problem of stakeholders’ perspective and assumption of space and the discomfort of not feeling the presence of being at home. Inferiority suggested that higher-income residents benefit from the social services and neighbourhood facilities compared to the social residents (Moshin, 2018), and thus, re-emphasising the discriminatory practices within the urban regeneration estate process. The final challenge is isolation, where most social tenants feel like their needs are ignored, which causes loneliness and seclusion (Moshin, 2018). All four problems were thoroughly investigated using qualitative methods, such as interviews and observations, which eventually transpired into temporary solutions and promote inclusivity and social activity. Moshin (2018) used Woodberry Down as a case for study to examine the social problems and issues, as well as the selected site, by creating public spaces in between the housing units to encourage social cohesion. Moshin (2018) also explains how living in the same estates does not bring tenants together and argues the importance of small spatial distance, such as mini public space projects, to encourage social contact between neighbours of different tenures (Moshin, 2018). CC: Methodology & Outcomes Moshin (2018) considered qualitative methodologies, such as interviews and fieldwork observations, to collect the case data and findings. While doing fieldwork, Moshin (2018) observed the interaction of physical encounters between stakeholders and recorded the challenges discussed in public meetings at neighbourhood facilities. The interviewing process revealed the feelings and perceptions between the tenants, management, and authorities in the Woodberry Down community (Moshin, 2018). The interviews indicated that existing residents believed that they do not have any commonalities with new residents, lack of family activities in the estate, the reservoir is a satisfied landmark, and the lack of communication throughout the development (Moshin, 2018). By interviewing an interracial audience of social tenants and owners, as well as establishing thoughtprovoking questions (SEE IMAGE 8), Moshin (2018) collected personal experiences relating to the social challenges in mixed communities. Another method used was mental mapping to reiterate the concerns as discussed in the interviews. The final method applied was a case study highlighting Alexandra Road Estate and its 34

attempt, by Neave Brown, to create small pockets with different intimate public areas and encouraging stronger bonds between the residents (Moshin, 2018). Moshin (2018) concluded her research with an experimental case study by resolving the issues at Woodberry Down through a tactical community design theme to improve social dynamics while connecting neighbourhood facilities to the estate (Moshin, 2018). The case outcomes included four strategies—accessibility, connectivity, magnitude, and inclusivity (Moshin, 2018), which respond to the social needs at Woodberry Down regeneration estates. The accessibility strategy is a permanent attempt to link the estate together through a design wetland bridge, from the estate to the reservoir, and provide a connection to a café, jogging track, and the community centre (Moshin, 2018). The goal is to provide opportunities for different groups to integrate, however, architectural solutions alone do not always create social interactive opportunities. The connectivity scheme creates pathways uniting the existing and new development in the mixed neighbourhood (Moshin, 2018) and acting as another architectural design element by creating opportunities for integration. The magnitude strategy is one of the first strategies implementing small scale interventions to embrace the intimate moments between stakeholders. This method proposes the idea of festival events and interim outdoor libraries as a temporary urbanism solution to redeem activity and promote diversity within the community (Moshin, 2018). Inclusivity is the most influential tactical scheme that encourages participation from all groups of people through DIY experimentation for a new market with flexible furniture & landscape spaces (Moshin, 2018). Moshin (2018) passionately describes this public space as “the heart” of Woodberry Down by accommodating multiple activities and opportunities for cultural experiences (Moshin, 2018) (SEE IMAGE 9). The market provides a valuable purpose for not only design but also ways to create an experiment that improves social and behavioural activity. The whole idea for Moshin (2018) is to build bridges within a large, diverse community through a mix of temporary and permanent interventions, in order to encourage movement and improve socialising between all stakeholders in the community. Ultimately, these small interventions can act as temporary short-term actions for testing ideas in conjunction with the final Woodberry Down estate regeneration project (Moshin, 2018).

CC: Conclusion In conclusion, Moshin (2018) excellent research on the outlooks and perceptions of residents at Woodberry Down led to a series of solutions featuring small tactics and semi-permanent interventions. Even though, one cannot guarantee social connectivity through

architectural features alone, this inclusive design still leads to the importance of ownership, empowerment, and respect in community developments in urban regeneration areas.

IMAGE 8: Moshin’s (2018) Woodberry Down Estate interview questions

IMAGE 9: Proposed market area and street furniture at Woodberry Down Estates (Moshin, 2018)

MULTIPLE CASE STUDY ANALYSES & DISCUSSION

6.1 ANALYSES Multiple Case Study: General Challenges & Findings Case A, Case B, and Case C address multiple challenges on how to include people within community development by implementing tactical or temporary urbanism through various design renaissances, such as downtown revitalisation, affordable housing systems, and urban regeneration mixed communities. Case A and B concentrates on the issues of macro-level structures of development by holding government powers and systems accountable for community activity and the lack of systematic innovations. Case A issues a qualitative study addressing the lack of a coordinated strategy to attract people to the downtown revitalisation project, and thus viewing the isolated implementations without considering the bigger picture (Ware, 2017). Even though Case A does not discuss MTHDs specific issue of social exclusion and interaction, there is a similar goal that creates a strategy to improve the relationships and provide services that are inclusive for all lifestyles. Case A explains the theories to reactivate downtown by supporting city official investments. At the same time, Case B emphasises the balance of power between micro and macro sanctions and how everyone must take a role in the redevelopment of any community. Both systems recognise the need to reconstruct a development process while contributing guidance to those stakeholders lacking direction. Through secondary research and literary support, the authors in Case B concluded that the US housing market represented severely disrupted macro-level legacy structures, such as discriminatory racial and socioeconomic practices, which potentially limited innovative forms of affordable housing (Ozanne et al., 2018). For example, poor residents are generally forced out of their neighbourhoods and homes due to unaffordability, while regenerated neighbourhoods appease to ‘new’ affluent residents and users. Similar to US urban regeneration, mixed development areas in the UK portray legacy structures of social injustices, which results to social, unbalanced sustainable communities (Ozanne et al., 2018). In this case, social and market-rate tenants encounter prejudices, and developers create establishments and services for wealthy households while providing limited facilities to low-income tenants (Ozanne et al., 2018). US and UK housing systems have a history of social, destructive policies and patterns, and 36

thus requires a change in regulations and perspective on how to innovate the process of housing in western culture. However, Case C provide evidence of personal experiences and perceptions on the social dynamics in MTHDs owing to destructive policies. The researcher gives the reader a better understanding of micro-level perspective challenges. In comparison to Case B, Case C generated a study on the inferiority disputes, such as expensive supermarkets for affluent residents instead of low-income residents, and shares a comprehensive analysis of the outcomes in a mixed-tenure community (Moshin, 2018). Therefore, Case C exemplifies the closet description of mixed-tenure challenges between the stakeholders, where anti-social behaviours resulted in avoidance, social disconnection, and isolation between existing and new tenants. Even though three cases expressed specific interests on the challenges of community developments, they all concluded that the solution resides within the elements of tactical or temporary urbanism to resolve community problems and improve the development process. Multiple Case Study: General Outcomes & Solutions Case A and B provide macro-level tactical urbanism solutions for testing and experimentation. In contrast, Case C provides temporary urbanism outcomes in response to anti-social behaviours in mixed communities. Case A suggested (3) phases of tactical urbanism to serve as a stand-alone document and implementation guide for the Downtown Task Force, policymakers, managers, developers, and the public (Ware, 2017).The researcher uses sanctioned procedures to proactively engage downtown stakeholders, inspire investment, and identify potential partnerships by maximising tactical approaches for testing and experimentation to complement larger projects for future investments. Phase (1) demo projects represent tactical motives for change within Grand Prairie downtown and help gravitate citizens into the central neighbourhood (Ware, 2017), however, the assumption that individuals migrate toward a temporary intervention based on architectural attributes alone is impractical. The question is “Once the citizen arrives in the space, what type of social programmes encourage interaction?” According to Ware (2017), the seats, tables, and soft landscapes may set the mood for the Phase (1) Interim Plaza project, but ignores the intimate, social activities, such as game night or movie night.

Planners sometimes depend on design alone for improvements, however, creating a team of collaborative professional perspectives, such as a team of socialists and architects, provides a range of design ideas and approaches for more vibrant communities. Phase 2 is another testing project for observing citizen activity while encouraging real estate agents, developers, and business owners to purchase land and relocate downtown (Ware, 2017). By testing and experimentation with Phase 1 & 2, Ware (2017) hopes to implement a programme for the public to create tactical urbanism projects and activate downtown called Activation Overlay (Phase 3) (Ware, 2017). Phase 3 is similar to the goal and ideas for improving MTHDs, where citizens are encouraged to create ways to improve and address the challenges in their community by encouraging civic engagement and empowerment. Case B highlights four creative destructions by eliminating US legacy structural systems while stimulating innovations through tactical moments for affordable housing (Ozanne et al., 2018). Two of the outcomes focused on using tactical urbanism as a tool for DIY testing and socially constructed projects, while others act as recommendations for changing the housing system. The go smaller method is a proactive approach that focuses on Step 5 (SEE DIAGRAM 1) of the design thinking tactical urbanism process. It allows stakeholders to test out the success and failures of the experiments. The let’s get, moving method addresses the obstructive and outdated housing policies through a DIY project that will help transform stereotypes of nomad travellers in US society. As for MTHDs, a DIY temporary building project could serve as potential programmes for testing teamwork relationships and reactions among stakeholders while promoting inclusion and improving perceptions in an urban regeneration community. The other two solutions are programmes for loosening US zoning regulations (more is merrier) and support for co-housing initiatives by adapting to the untraditional family (growing organic families —Ozanne et al., 2018). It seems that only two out of the four solutions suggested by Ozanne et al. (2018) centred around tactical urbanism and included theories based on experimentation and response to social equity. Therefore, tactical methods used in Case B addresses situations in response to municipal influences and powers. Ozanne et al. (2018) also acknowledge the disadvantages of tactical moments and its use to raise consciousness without implementing social change (Ozanne et al., 2018). Therefore, both micro-level and meso-level are needed to execute the goal to see a full shift in a market system. Case B reflects Lydon and Garcia (2015) theory that strategy and tactics are essential when coercing a tactical goal. This theory for collaborative negotiations and initiatives can be used in the MTHD process.

Unlike Case A and B, Case C focused on the term temporary urbanism, but acknowledged tactical practices and methods within design development in mixed communities. After discovering the division between the existing social tenants and new market residents in the neighbourhood, the researcher created temporary and permanent urban opportunities to encourage social interaction (Moshin, 2018). For example, the construction of the wetland bridge was an accessible, connective attempt to link the mixed-tenure estate to the reservoir, with the hope that residents will interact while traveling on the footpath. However, one cannot guarantee such hope for social cohesion when the issues between the residents are based on perception. Therefore, sociology practices should be included in the process of creating interactive developments. In contrast, the researcher established a temporary intervention and a new inclusive market that promotes public space and social activities to integrate and create diverse communities (Moshin, 2018). The researcher’s goal was to create a place where all lifestyles and backgrounds could feel welcome in the neighbourhood (Moshin, 2018) by creating a small project adhering to the overall vision of a balance, mixed community. This idea relates to tactical urbanism, where urbanists could lead a DIY chair seating project at the market while imputing a debriefing section by discussing social dynamics in the neighbourhood. Unintentionally, the researcher is introducing tactical approaches to shortterm actions for long-term change in the Woodberry Estate neighbourhood. All case studies share ideas on how to implement a tactical approach within the design process. Whether responding to a physical disturbance or improving socially constructed systems, tactical urbanism is a useful tool for addressing challenges in community developments. 6.2 DISCUSSION Inclusivity within community developments Each case indicated the need to encourage a variety of users in a new development or space through the lens of tactical urbanism. Case A used temporary solutions to attract a variety of people to downtown. Case B established the DIY method to reconstruct the social injustice of US legacy structure systems while demanding that all lifestyle types and backgrounds appear in US housing policies. However, Case C acknowledges the need for more social cohesion in mixed-tenure communities by creating temporary spaces and opportunities to inspire diversity and social interactions. The cases provide different ways of promoting inclusive habits for all individuals through the creation of tactical and temporary methods and approaches. 37

Small Tactics on a Macro-Level

6.3 CONCLUSION

Another common theme is how the researchers use small tactics to address macro-level issues by applying the tactical urbanism idea of short-term change towards a long-term goal (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). Case A discusses how Activation Downtown will complement the overarching vision for a revitalised downtown Grand Prairie (Ware, 2017) and indicate the need for small prototypes to excite and attract people to the area. In comparison, Case B argues that both macro and micro levels collaborate to produce small tactical moments for systematic change (Ozanne et al., 2018). The goal is to create pockets of solutions that will link into mesolevel institutions, known as coalition building —growing attention of urban and regional issues by reconnecting justice movements between global and local scales (Soja, 2010). However, Case C provides both a historical view on the top-down system of urban regeneration and delivers bottom-up temporary public spaces (Moshin, 2018) that helps disintegrates stereotypical viewpoints among stakeholders in mixed-tenure neighbourhoods. Each case study shares tactical approaches, which leads to the overall transformation and improvement for development or community. Therefore, this acts as guidance for city officials building socially sustainable mixed-tenure communities.

The case studies present issues of inclusivity and systemic changes, which are similar to MTHD challenges of exclusion and social behaviour and the lack of respect from authoritative (managerial) systems. The researchers decided to solve the problems through the proactive testing technique of tactical or temporary urbanism that responded to outdated policies and regulations while changing socially constructed viewpoints. The common theme in the discussion was that tactical urbanism uses small tactics towards a long-term goal that helps promote inclusive communities. However, another trending concept is that architectural design alone does not necessarily resolve the issues within a development or community. One must strongly consider implementing Step 1 (SEE DIAGRAM 1) from the design thinking process (Lydon and Garcia, 2015) and include social value principles within the tactical urbanism projects. Therefore, this dissertation suggest tactical urbanism approaches in response to MTHDs challenges which promotes inclusive practices and focuses on short-term programming for a long-term goals to maximises social value and integration. The following section describes several recommendations and two tactical approaches to improve the social dynamics and management systems for city officials, developers, managers, and tenants in mixedtenure communities.

Beyond Architectural Features The final observation of the case studies was the emphasis on a physical design solution, rather than both physical and social value resolution. For example, Case A & B developed design-build tactical projects as answers to community development challenges (Ozanne et al., 2018). However, there were no social criteria indicated in the projects. Designers sometimes assumed that if temporary space is created individuals will communicate and adapt to the environment quickly. Case A & B should have included a research study explaining people’s reactions to community development and the neighbourhood of study. On the contrary, Case C includes a qualitative study on how individuals felt about the neighbourhood (Moshin, 2018)by developing a solution around an architectural design approach. Moshin intended to create public spaces and interventions to encourage social interaction; however, design alone does not guarantee social cohesion. More programmes should acknowledge the social implications, through a debriefing exercise, in community developments.

PART IV: RECOMMENDATIONS

TACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 INTRODUCTION The beginning of this dissertation discussed two major challenges within MTHDs—social dynamics and management practices—and the value of using tactical methods as a resolution tool for all stakeholders (CHART 2). However, Part III extrapolated the commonalities and differences of several tactical and temporary solutions in three case studies and explored inclusive benefits by applying tactical urbanism to small-scale strategies as a complement to a visionary plan. This chapter will reiterate the social and managerial problems in MTHDs and describe the best tactical urbanism solutions for city officials, developers, managers, and tenants. These solutions (SEE DIAGRAM 4) transform into two tactical prototypes, which are applied as a two separate projects for MTHD stakeholders. 7.2 BETTER SOCIAL, COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITIES Social Dynamics The first issue in mixed-tenure developments is to improve the social dynamics between stakeholders, which involves changing individual negative perceptions about another. For example, social tenants at the estate in IJburg, Amsterdam felt that higher-income owners and management perceive to underrate the lifestyle of social tenants (Tersteeg, et al., 2015). In contrast, the owners and managers considered social tenants to be destructive and irresponsible (Tersteeg, et al., 2015). A similar perspective is seen through the eyes of a public resident at Woodberry Down estates, who believes that tenants living together tend to distant themselves due to communication barriers (Tersteeg, et al., 2015). Both situations indicate the importance of regenerating social balance and encouraging new methods to improve communication in mixed-tenure communities. The first recommendation is to inspire managers and developers to generate and maintain the social balance of diverse backgrounds and lifestyles in mixed-tenure communities. This can be down by introducing small tactical programmes and events that will complement the overall neighbourhood master plan. The strategy requires authorities to import social sustainable principles, such as supporting cultural life and activate citizen engagement for all lifestyles, communities, and societies (Woodcraft

et al., 2011) within the MTHD process. Exposing people to other perspectives and cultural experiences builds character and creates a pathway towards community partnerships and better social connections. Furthermore, it is pivotal that private sector stakeholders act as leaders to ensure that the variety of tenure and backgrounds are a part of the MTHD new and improved process in order to gain a wide range of perspectives for a better, inclusive community. We see real state corporations practising this concept through the role of Corporate Social Responsibility to open up the gate for better dialogue, social networking, and design strategies between existing communities and developers (Colantonio and Dixon, 2011) by giving a new power and voice to the people. Secondly, government authorities should encourage communication through a remote DIY tactical programme and debriefing exercise that develops social values between all stakeholders. The goal is to understand and empathise with people by combining a sociology question technique with tactical mechanisms. The DIY programme will incorporate a debrief questionnaire sheet —created by a team of experts who study the sociology of human perceptions— to ignite conversation between individuals in MTHDs, as led by the tactical urbanist. By restructuring Moshin’s interview questions (IMAGE 9) and reviewing Davidson’s guided tactical urbanism questions (APPENDIX: A), this study formulates a sample of several strategic and reflexive questions (SEE CHART 3) for MTHDs during a tactical urbanism project. The sample questions not only reflect community issues but also submerge into the personal and social experiences of living in a mixed urban regeneration environment. However, the leader(s) hosting the DIY project should also explore universal concerns and needs amongst stakeholders by linking similar interests towards a common cause. For example, tenants at the estate in IJburg, expressed their concerns to the managerial staff about having more football play space (concerns by social tenants) and intimate, quiet community gardens (concerns by homeowners) in the communal yard (the shared issue —Tersteeg, et al., 2015). Nevertheless, the managerial staff only resolved the issue by demanding a restrictive “no noise” and “no football” policy, which benefited homeowners and disregarded the social residents (Tersteeg, et al., 2015).

IMPROVE SOCIAL DYNAMICS

RESTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT

Improve the social dynamics between stakeholders (city officials, developers, mangers, & tents)

Restructure managerial systems and practices catering to affluent residents instead of social residents

RECOMMENDATION 1

Give power to the under-serve and provide programmes to authorities to better understand their tenants

(FOR MANAGERS & DEVELOPERS TO GENERATE & MAINTAIN MIXED COMMUNITIES) Improve the social balance of diverse backgrounds and lifestyles in mixed tenure communities by introducing small tactical programmes and events complementing the overall neighbourhood master plan

RECOMMENDATION 2 (FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS DISCOVER THE SOCIAL VALUE OF A MIXED COMMUNITY) Encourage communication through a remote DIY tactical urbanism project and a debriefing exercise that develops respect and empathy between all stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATION 1 (FOR CITY OFFICIALS & DEVELOPERS TO GENERATE & OBSERVE USERS IN MIXED COMMUNITIES) Create a tactical urbanism prototype that allows authorities to test out the interaction for new mixed communities, while gaining an understanding and perspective on all applicable tenants (both market & social housing)

RECOMMENDATION 2 (FOR RESIDENTS & MANAGERSPARTICIPATE & MAINTAIN THEIR COMMUNITIES) Promote civic engagement opportunities for tenants in MTHDs by establishing a tactical program responding to issues within management practices

TACTICAL URBANISM PROJECT GUIDE SHEETS for MTHDs Project A TACTICAL APPROACHES for COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITIES (TACC)

Project B TACTICAL APPROACHES for SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY (TASS)

proactive design strategy

reactive sanctioned design strategy

an experimental event where developers and city officials get to test out the dynamics and various type of uses in a new mixed neighbourhood

- a project to help repair MTHDs by responding to unfair systems and actions through tactical urbanism - a guide for tenants who have been neglected by management - opportunity to improve communication and relationships

DIAGRAM 4: Mixed-tenure housing development recommendations and tactical urbanism projects 42

SOCIAL DYNAMIC QUESTIONS

(questions given to participants before the project event) What is your view about the mixed-tenure neighbourhood? Are there any concerns about this neighbourhood? If so, how have these issues effected you? Are there any concerns about your neighbours? What do you think about the new people coming into the neighhourhood? What do you think about the existing people living in the neighbourhood? How do you feel about the people living in mixed-tenure developments? What are your perceptions? Do you feel people in the development will judge you about your lifestyle views? Why or why not?

PROJECT RESPONSE QUESTIONS (questions to discuss at the end of a project)

Base on your experience today, what have you learn from the project? Can you share any information about the cultural or social perspectives of the neighbourhoods? What more do you want from your development or neighbourhood? How can the managerial staff support you at this development?

CHART 3: Sample questions for the Debriefing Exercise session 43

However, by using the communal yard as the common denominator, the tenants could initiate a DIY tactical urbanism project by implementing architectural noise control features and designing temporary gardens to bring awareness to the management staff. Following the project, the leader could conduct a debriefing session, using a similar questionnaire in CHART 3 by discussing pressing issues and sharing personal feelings about their MTHD. As discussed above, generating social balance through interactive tactics and establishing communication exercises between stakeholders improves the social dynamics within MTHDs and communities. Management Practices & Systems Another challenge in MTHDs is the way managerial systems adopt rules, services, and facilities to cater to affluent residents rather than social tenants. History has proven that MTHD environments do not embrace the lifestyles of public residents, which creates social dissentients between tenants and managerial leaders. This issue of exclusiveness deems from generations of legacy structures where systems are set in place to accommodate the wealthy, while ignoring the working class (Ozanne et al., 2018). It seems that mixedtenure management teams, as well as city officials and developers, need to understand their audiences, especially social housing tenants when enforcing mixed- tenure development practices in urban regeneration areas. Therefore, municipal powers should generate methods for developers to interact with their users and grant residents the opportunity to respectfully challenge unfair management systems through tactical urbanism projects. Firstly, city officials and developers should generate a tactical urbanism prototype that will allow them to test and observe the interactions within new mixedtenure communities to gain a better understanding and perspective on all applicable tenants. The goal is to get rid of prejudices and stereotypes through the means of project building, collaboration, and discussion, while applying the Q&A debriefing exercise in CHART 3 for further enlightenment. The process requires municipal powers to create a neighbourhood tactical urbanism project in a new MTHD for the community and tenant applicants. This project should also encourage business owners, investors, and developers through financial incentives, to participate and become acquainted with their users. City officials can use a similar strategy such as the City of Grand Prairie Main Street Façade Improvement Program, where financial assistance was offered to property owners to revitalise their store fronts as a complementary aesthetic to the city’s downtown (Ware, 2017). These incentives encourage stakeholders to participate in community development, 44

while adhering to tactical interventions for promising future investment. In contrast, residents and users in MTHDs should be allowed to lead tactical projects, under the direction of a “socially responsible” city council. City council should promote civic engagement opportunities for tenants in MTHDs by establishing a tactical programme addressing unresponsive behaviours in managerial leadership and practices. This strategy should act as a last resort of action if management systems are not following protocol or dismissing tenant requests and concerns. The purpose of this programme is to allow tenants the ability to respond to discriminatory practices in a sanctioned tactical process. Furthermore, the programme can also teach coalition-building by creating a dialogue between managers and residents to establish better communication and collaboration skills. For example, the Build a Better Block initiative was a tactical urbanism project initiated by concerned citizens in the Dallas, Texas community who demonstrated the possibilities of reviving vacant lots, empty store fronts, and abandon buildings, which were ignored by municipal organisations for years (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). Dallas citizen’s creative determinations eventually transformed the inactive, run-down streets into a vibrant city block, which gained attention from the government and opened discussion for neighbourhood revitalization. This idea of Build A Better Block has been duplicated in many countries around the world (Lydon and Garcia, 2015). It proves that bottomup tactical movements can influence top-down decision making and change the way authorities, such as managers, view community and development. In conclusion, interactive tactics are essential for improving the social dynamics and managerial systems in MTHDs. The key component is to formulate tactical programmes that embrace social balance, encourage communication, generate incite and discussion, and promote civic engagement among stakeholders. The following documents are two tactical urbanism schemes to stimulate social cohesion and stakeholder involvement within MTHDs. Project A—Tactical Approaches for Collaborative Communities (TACC)—is a proactive design strategy acting as an experimental event where developers and city officials are opportune to test out the dynamics and various type of uses in a new mixed neighbourhood. In this project, tenants and managerial staff get well acquainted with each other and their community.

Project B— Tactical Approaches for Social Sustainability (TASS)—is described as a reactive approach to help repair MTHDs by responding to unfair systems and actions through tactical urbanism. This project acts as a dual-purpose guide for tenants who have been neglected by management and for management staff willing to learn about the tenants and surrounding community. Both documents are separate instruction guide sheets (presented as single page, A3 documents) for generating tactical urbanism methods within the mixed-tenure housing development process.

PROJECT A

OVERVIEW

TACTICAL APPROACHES for COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITIES (TACC) An instruction guide for city officials & developers working in Mixed-Tenure Housing Developments & Neighbourhoods VISION Our vision for TACC is to create collaborative projects for new mixed-tenure housing developments in urban regeneration areas as a complement strategy to a community or neighbourhood plan. The goal is to prevent preconceive stereotypes and prejudices between stakeholders while building relationships through tactical urbanism approaches.

PROCESS

OBJECTIVES Improve Social Dynamics and values, such as respect and empathy, between stakeholders (e.g. tenants, management company, local business owners, etc.) Test out the community interaction between new & existing citizens in the neighbourhood Establish partnerships and network connections COLLABORATE

INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT All stakeholders will voluntarily participate in a Do It Yourself (DIY) project, such as chair bombing exercise for a communal amenity (community garden, playground, the marketplace, etc..), to help build the new community. The project will be hosted by a tactical urbanist(s) (city officials, community activists, etc.) and a team of design professionals. The tactical urbanist will establish the discussion material, while the design professional will guide the team on how to build the architectural feature. The project has the potential to coexist with other events and programs, such as a block party or neighborhood festival; however, such a decision should be discussed amongst council members.

BUILD

PURPOSE City officials and developers will have the opportunity to observe mixed-tenure communities before completion of the project and develop local partnerships without exasperating government funds. New and existing tenants will potentially get to know each other through guided conversation and coalition building Managers will be able to observe and communicate with potential tenants and get to understand the existing community

REFLECT

TACTICAL APPROACHES for COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITIES (TACC) ACTION PLAN Action 1 PROCESS & REVIEW THE 5 STEPS City officials need to review the tactical urbanism Design Thinking 5 Step Process [1] (SEE 5 STEP PROCESS), particularly STEP 1-3. The goal is to understand the audience, acknowledge any root causes or issues in that specific area, and brainstorm tactical DIY opportunities for community engagement. Make sure the project includes cultural or historical relevance to the community. For example, the Seven Sisters Market, located in a Latin-American community in north London, is undergoing urban regeneration [3]. Therefore, a DIY project at the market should represent the Latin heritage in the community, such as recreating an interpretative design of the Cotacachi lounge chair by Angel Pazmino, an Ecuadorian designer of the1960s [2]. Be incredibly careful not to offend the audiences when choosing culturally relevant architecture; instead, do thorough research on the community background & history Action 2 COLLABORATE & PREPARE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & DEBRIEF EXERCISE Once the DIY project is set in place, officials should begin project development (STEP 4). The following list represents an essentials toward a TACC project (all actions work simultaneously): Contact design professionals and other influential experts to develop the design features Distribute a questionnaire (SEE SAMPLE QUESTIONS) to potential residents, particularly applicants of the mixed-tenure development Hire a professional sociologist to work with the design professionals and city to create a questionnaire about the mixed-tenure community that relates to the design project Ensure all participants return answers a week before the event and keep all names anonymous Encourage developers and managers by giving them incentives & motives to participate in the TACC project Select a tactical urbanist from the group of experts hired to facilitate the project Research funding opportunities, interchangeable resources, partnerships, local sources, and government grants Begin advertisements, such as social media, email blast, and flyers Contact local business & partnerships to setup vendors & pop-shops (this work well when TACC project aligns with other community events)

Action 3 BUILD & CONDUCT DIY TACTICAL PROJECT City officials and tactical urbanist should review the responses to the questionnaire to prep for the debriefing session & DIY project *The DIY project will vary depending on the specific area and mixedtenure community The tactical urbanist and design professionals will host the DIY project and celebrate the attributes of such community At the end of the project, the tactical urbanist will conduct a debriefing session This discussion should be based on the responses from the questionnaire and the overall project experience. The goal is to link everything together to create a better environment within mixed-tenure housing developments Action 4 REFLECT & REPEAT Use STEP 5 and the build-measure-learn method to reflect on the outcomes by conducting a follow-up survey given to all participants at the TACC project. If the project is successful, adopt the model in other mixed-tenure communities; however, if unsuccessful, revise the process to fit community needs 5 STEP PROCESS [1]

Design Thinking for Tactical Urbanism

STEP 1: EMPATHISE Understand the audience Observe the people in the project area Be inclusive by acknowledging all lifestyles and backgrounds of people

STEP 2: DEFINE Identify the root causes of the problem Pick a specific area or site to conduct the project Do your research about the area or site (seek a professional for help)

STEP 5: TEST

(Use the build-measure-learn process to collect feedback)

SAMPLE QUESTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE given to participants before the project event What is your view about the mixed-tenure neighbourhood? Are there any concerns about this neighbourhood? If so, how have these issues effected you? Are there any concerns about your neighbours? What do you think about the new people coming into the neighbourhood? What do you think about the existing people living in the neighbourhood? How do you feel about the people living in mixed-tenure developments? What are your perceptions? Do you feel people in the development will judge you about your lifestyle views? Why or why not?

DEBRIEF EXERCISE QUESTIONS to discuss at the end of a project

BUILD- develop process (steps 1-4) and observe the results

Base on your experience today, what have you learn from the project?

MEASURE the success and learn from the failures- create a value system or criteria for the project; a checklist of the outcomes (E.g. new residents will understand the cultural history of the community)

Can you share any information about the cultural or social perspectives of the neighbourhoods?

LEARN- document the project by use of photos, videography, etc… & reflect the outcomes

STEP 4: PROTOTYPE

What more do you want from your development or neighbourhood? How can the managerial staff support you at this development?

(consider hiring a design professional for help)

STEP 3: IDEATE Develop creative ways to address the problem Brainstorm project ideas

Plan a project that can be quickly, inexpensively executed Identify partners to provide resources and volunteers, if needed Create project schedule Research funding and local resources to help with the materials

[1] Lydon, M. and Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical urbanism: short term action for long-term change. Washington, DC: Island Press [2] Pamono. (2020). Leather model cotcachi lounge chairs. Pamono GmbH. Available from https://www.pamono.co.uk/leather-model-cotacachilounge-chairs-by-angel-i-pazmino-for-muebles-de-estilo-1960s-set-of-2 [Accessed 08 August 2020] [3] Unit 38. (2019). Wards corner community plan. London. Available from https://www.wardscornerplan.org/the-plan [Accessed 11 October 2019]

PROJECT B

OVERVIEW

TACTICAL APPROACHES for SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY (TASS) An instruction guide for mangers & residents working in Mixed-Tenure Housing Developments & Neighbourhoods

IDENTIFY

VISION Our vision for TASS is to help repair existing mixed-tenure developments by responding to current issues and encouraging socially sustainable practices through the tactical urbanism process. The goal is to discover common challenges in mixed-tenure communities and create shared solutions between residents and managers.

PROCESS

OBJECTIVES Activate citizen participation and engagement amongst residents Raise awareness on specific issues not being addressed by management Develop responsibility and respect by conducting collaborative negotiation schemes between the management staff & residents

APPLY

INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT The project response to discriminatory practices towards residents by the development management systems. Residents will be able to create a tactical urbanism method providing solutions to the specific problem at the development. However, managers will be able to implement tactical approaches as a resolution for existing conflicts and disputes. All projects must be approved by the city council to eliminate confrontation between the managers and residents.

LEAD

PURPOSE Residents will address their concerning issues while creating new ideas for the development

BUILD

Residents will practice civic engagement Management will improve their communication between the residents and find resourceful outlets for enhancing design features in the development Mangers & residents will learn the art of negotiation and compromise through the debriefing exercise NEGOTIATE

TACTICAL APPROACHES for SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY (TASS) ACTION PLAN Action 1 IDENTIFY THE ISSUE Find out the concerns or issues and follow the development protocols within the mixed-tenure housing development If issue has not been addressed by management after following protocol, proceed to Action 2

Action 2 PROCESS & REVIEW THE 5 STEPS Create your tactical urbanism project by following the tactical urbanism Design Thinking 5 Step Process [1] (SEE 5 STEP PROCESS) Remember this is not a self-interest project; therefore, the issue should be a common concern between multiple residents a shared tactical solution

Action 3 APPLY & SUBMIT IDEA TO CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW Once you have reviewed the process and establish the details for the tactical project, apply to the city council for review. The council will then contact you about the approval or disapproval of your project

Action 4 SELECT A LEADER After approval, pick a professional leader or expert tactical urbanist to host your event. This person will act as the liaison and negotiator between the two conflicting parties (residents and management). The selected leader is to be reviewed by the City Council.

Action 5 BUILD & CONDUCT THE TACTICAL PROJECT The project should specifically address your issue in the development by using small-scale design methods At the end of the project, the leader will conduct a debriefing session (SEE SAMPLE QUESTIONS) This discussion should be based around ideas to create a comprehensive agreement to eliminate future disturbances at the development. The goal is to create a better environment and understanding between residents and managers within mixed tenure developments.

Use STEP 5 and the build-measure-learn method to reflect and conduct a follow-up survey given to all participants at the TASS project. The tactical leader also helps both parties negotiate an agreement to eliminate future confrontations pertaining to the identified issue (Action 1). *The action process applies to both management and residents who are interested in conducting a tactical urbanism project

5 STEP PROCESS [1]

Design Thinking for Tactical Urbanism

Understand the audience Observe the people in the project area Be inclusive by acknowledging all lifestyles and backgrounds of people

STEP 2: DEFINE Identify the root causes of the problem Pick a specific area or site to conduct the project Do your research about the area or site (seek a professional for help)

STEP 5: TEST

STEP 4: PROTOTYPE

(consider hiring a design professional for help)

STEP 3: IDEATE Develop creative ways to address the problem Brainstorm project ideas

DEBRIEF EXERCISE QUESTIONS to discuss at the end of a project Base on your experience today, what have you learn from the project? Can you share any information about the cultural or social perspectives of the neighbourhoods? What more do you want from your development or neighbourhood?

Action 6 NEGOTIATE & REFLECT

STEP 1: EMPATHISE

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

[1] Lydon, M. and Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical urbanism: short term action for long-term change. Washington, DC: Island Press

How can the managerial staff support you at this development?

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, policymakers must recognize new approaches for improving social value and management practices in mixed-tenure housing developments. In this study, the tactical urbanism approach acts as a useful tool for addressing mixed-tenure challenges and concerns. This approach allows developers and managers to understand their residents by eliminating negative perceptions and stereotypes through DIY tactical projects and community debriefing exercises. In conjunction, residents can respond to injustice systems while engaging with their surrounding neighbourhood through citizen participatory projects and programmes. The multiple case study method further demonstrates the use of tactical strategies within various large-scale developments. Cases A, B, and C (DIAGRAM 3) create small-term temporary approaches to promote inclusive communities that complement long-term change. However, the projects focused on a physical design solution, rather than a social value resolution. Therefore, it is vital to include socially sustainable practices and promote conversations through debriefing exercise sessions in tactical urbanism projects. The research study suggests several tactical urbanism recommendations to improve the social value, as well as the management practices in mixed-tenure communities. City officials and developers are encouraged to introduce small tactical programmes and communication exercises that celebrate culture and diversity. Residents and managers can develop tactical projects responding to the concerns and dilemmas at the development. All stakeholders receive two examples of tactical approaches — Tactical Approaches for Collaborative Communities (TACC) and Tactical Approaches for Social Sustainability (TASS)—as instruction guides promoting change and civic action to improve the social challenges in mixed-tenure communities. Mixed-tenure housing developments pose other critical challenges that are excluded from the topic of study. More research must be explored about the methods and solutions for improving these developments. However, this research proves that tactical urbanism is a practical approach for building better, social, responsible, and integrated mixed communities.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: GUIDED QUESTIONS Mariko Davidson guided questions for each section of the Design Thinking 5 Step tactical urbanism approach (Lydon and Garcia, 2015) EMPATHIZE o o o o o o o o o o

Who is this project for? How many people have you talked to in the community? Do you need to become mor familiar with the community? Who in the community will benefit? Who will not? Can you get more buy-in from your neighbors or the people who live and work near the project? How can your project proposal be broadened to further engage and support young, old, disabled, poor, disadvantaged, minority groups? Are there special needs in the community? Can the project be adjusted to reach a wider swath of users? Have you put yourself in the shoes of the least advantaged? Have you engaged a variety of stakeholders to help you with the project?

DEFINE o o o o o

What are the needs of the community? Can you shrink the scale of the site and scope of the project, at least temporarily? Does the problem exist elsewhere locally? Do the site conditions exist elsewhere? Is there any relevant history that might inform the future of the site? Have you used the Five Whys exercise to help define the root causes of the problem you seek to address?

Will your project ideas be developed alone, with a small group, or with a large assembly of people? Will the project actually provide an advantage over the status quo for an identified group of people? Is the project compatible with its social and physical context, both in scale and in scope? Can the project be easily understood by most people? Can the project be tested easily? Can the project be easily replicated elsewhere? Is the path to implementation clear and relatively hurdle free? Will you undertake a sanctioned or unsanctioned project approach? Is the project going to be visible to many others? What can be learned from other projects implemented in other similar contexts?

IDEATE

o o o o o o o o o

PROTOTYPE o o o o o o

Have you articulated the proposed project’s long-term goal? How can you ensure the continuation of your project after implementation? Once implemented, what is the impact? Can you measure it quantitively? Qualitatively? Does it address the area’s sustainability, accessibility, equity, and health? If not, can it be reshaped to address these issues? Are there any safety risks with the project? Who in your community can help you?

o o o o

Do you have a variety of stakeholders to help you with the project? Are you planning for the unknown? Have you developed actionable metrics to use during the test? How will you communicate what you learn? Your successes and failures?

TEST

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES BOOKS Allen, C., Camina, M., Casey, R., Coward, S. and Wood, M. (2005). Mixed tenure, twenty years on: nothing out of the ordinary. London: Chartered Institute of Housing Gregory, James, Dr. (2009). In the mix: narrowing the gap between public and private housing. London: Fabian Society Jupp, B. (1999). Living together: community life on mixed tenure estates. London: Demos Lydon, M. and Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical urbanism: short term action for long-term change. Washington, DC: Island Press Reeves, P. (2014). Affordable and social housing policy and practice. New York: Routledge Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press. Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: design and methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, California London; SAGE Publications Inc. JOURNALS Colantonio, A. and Dixon T. (2011). Urban regeneration & social sustainability best practice from european cities. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Lum, D. (1995). Cultural values and minority people of color. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare [online]. 22(1), Article 5. Available from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol22/iss1/5 [Accessed 09 August 2020] McGuire, D. (2017). Tactical urbanism: a plan for the revitalization of vacant and decrepit spaces. The Equilibrium [online]. 3(1). Available from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4jt5v9dk [Accessed 09 July 2020] Ozanne, L.K., Ozanne, J.L., and Phipps, M. (2018). Tactical moments of creative destruction for affordable housing. Journal of Macromarkting. 38(2). pp. 139-153. Available from sagepub.com/ journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0276146717745644 [Accessed 20 July 2020] Read, D. and Sanderford, D. (2017). Examining five common criticisms of mixed-income housing development found in the real estate, public policy, and urban planning literatures. Journal of Real Estate Literature [online]. 25(1), pp. 31-48. Available from https://aresjournals.org/doi/ abs/10.5555/0927-7544.25.1.31 [Accessed 20 March 2020] Tersteeg, A K., Pinkster, F.M. (2015). “Us up here and them down there”: how design, management, and neighborhood facilities shape social distance in a mixed-tenure housing development. Urban Affairs Review [online]. 52(5), pp.751–779. Available from sagepub.com/journalsPermissions. navDOI:10.1177/1078087415601221 uar.sagepub.com [Accessed 03 June 2020] REPORTS Design Council. (2020). A Public Vision for the Home of 2030. London. Available from https://www. designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/A%20Public%20Vision%20for%20the%20 Home%20of%202030.pdf [15 July 2020] 58

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. (2015). Inclusionary Housing Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities. Cambridge, MA. Available from https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/ inclusionary-housing-full_0.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2020] Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2019). National Planning Policy Framework. London: Open Government Licenses: Crown. Available from https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_ revised.pdf [16 July 2020] Moshin Khan, Z. (2018). Focusing on the ‘social in regeneration of social housing estates’: Unpublished MA Thesis. London: University of Westminster. Nouwelant, R. and Randolph, R. (2016). Mixed-tenure development: literature review on the impact of differing degrees of integration. Sydney: City Future Research Centre. Available from https:// researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:50166/ [Accessed 14 March 2020] Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2018). A new deal for Social housing. London: Open Government Licenses: Crown. Available from https://assets.publishing.service. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/733605/A_new_deal_for_social_ housing_web_accessible.pdf [20 March 2020] Unit 38. (2019). Wards corner community plan. London. Available from https://www.wardscornerplan. org/the-plan [11 October 2019] Ware, S.L. (2017). Tactical urbanism for downtown revitalization ‘City of Grand Prairie, Texas’: MCRP Thesis. Arlington: The University of Texas Woodcraft, Saffron, Bacon, Nicola, Caistor- Arendar, Lucia, & Hackett, Tricia. Foreword by Hall, Peter. (2011) Design for social sustainability. Social Life 2012: The Young Foundation WEBSITES Adolphus, M. (2020). How to…undertake case study research. Emerald Publishing Limited. Available from https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/archived/research/guides/methods/case_study.htm [Accessed 08 July 2020] Bokat-Lindell, S. (2020). How long will it take for the economy to recover? The New York Times Company. Available from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/opinion/economy-recoverycoronavirus.html [Accessed 8 August 2020] Dictionary.com. (2020). Tactical. Dictionary.com, LLC. Available from https://www.dictionary.com/ browse/tactical?s=t [Accessed 15 July 2020] Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. (2020). 50/30/20 mixed-income program (50/30/20). NYU Furman Center. Available from https://furmancenter.org/coredata/directory/entry/50-3020-mixed-income-program#:~:text=Eligible%20projects%20must%20ensure%20that,to%2040%20 percent%20of%20AMI. [Accessed 1 July 2020] Justice for All Coalition. (2020). Our plan: our basic list or demands & principles. Justice for All Coalition. Available from https://j4ac.us/community-plan/ [Accessed 16 July 2020] King, B. (2020). Coronavirus: what is a recession. BBC News. Available from https://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/business-52986863 [Accessed 8 August 2020] 59

IMAGES Biddulph, Mike. (2002) The woonerf concept illustration [image]. Available from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/245409172_The_UK_pilot_home_zone_programme_Emerging_ thoughts_and_lessons [Accessed 14 August 2020] Bryce. (2019). Couple build incredible tiny house for one years rent [image]. Available from https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx4K5FVcaK4 [Accessed 15 August 2020]. Jeff. (2017). Historical pictures of woonerven in the 1970s when they were first built [image]. Available from https://web.northeastern.edu/holland2017sustrans/?page_id=527 [Accessed 14 August 2020] Sebeck, Megan. (2017). Street painting at a Public Square in Seattle [image]. Available from https://www. cnu.org/publicsquare/2017/02/16/great-idea-tactical-urbanism [Accessed 14 August 2020] SoWal Beaches. (2013). Seaside Farmers Market in Seaside, Florida [image]. Available from https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F_sdd1DhCk [Accessed 14 August 2020].