studio DAM
Frank Moulaert Jan Schreurs Maarten Desmet Tim Devos Seppe De Blust Anamica Singh Assila Al-Ahmad Carmen Van Maercke Griet Juwet Lisa De Vos Elizabeth Kanini Wamuchiru Michael Kaethler Piedad Hoyos Garcia Ranjani Balasubramanian Razan Khalaf Valentina Amaya
2 | Intervention
Acknowledgements Preface
0 | Intro 0.1 Dam context
(6)
0.2 Stakeholders
(8)
0.3 Studio vision
(8)
0.4 Studio timeline
(10)
1 | Droom den Dam & Midreview workshop 1.1 Droom den Dam - Overview - Participants - Goals - Content - Process - Method - Conclusion - Suggestions
(14) (14) (14) (15) (15)
1.2 Midreview workshop - Overview - Goals - Workshop design - Discussion process - Three tables, three themes - Table dynamics and outcomes - Conclusions - Suggestions
(18) (18) (19) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (23)
(17) (17)
2.0 Introduction - Temporary spatial intervention as a method
(27)
2.1 Stadslab 2050 - Intentions - Method - Who was involved? - Conclusions
(28) (28) (29) (31) (32)
2.2 Toekomsttunnel - Intentions - Method - Who was involved? - Conclusions
(33) (33) (34) (36) (38)
(27)
3 | In-between phases 3.0 Process in between - Introduction - Taking off
(42) (42) (42)
3.1 Reflection 0 - Settling down - Forum vs. platform - Playing with better ‘kaarten’ / cards
(43) (43) (43) (44)
3.2 Being in the field
(44)
A. Mapping use of space (44) - Lost in translation - Use of space as a catalyst for discussion B. Social network analysis
(45)
- Pollination - To do vs. to know - Action research C. Ongoing intervention - Action - Objective - Description
(46)
Being in the field: wrap-up
(47)
3.3 Reflection 1 (47) - Canalizing all cards-kaarten (47) - Mission statement -> Vision statement - Metamorphosis of roles - The forum spatialized 3.4 Weaving narratives - Integrating perspectives - Who works with whom? - Convergence, a new thread into existing social dynamics
(49) (49) (49)
3.5 Critical reflection
(50)
(49)
4 | Meta - reflection 4.1 Introduction 4.1 Grappling with participation knowledge and practice
(54)
A. Joining the participatory party
(54)
- Our common definition: the ingredients of participation - Is everything participatory?
B. What did we learn about participation in this process? - A time to start / A time to end? - Participation needs time - A cornucopia of methods: selecting what works
C. Studio and participation
communication
(56)
B. Change in the Dam
(66)
C. Outputs with an outcome
(68)
(69)
- The relationship with the Dam/Dammers - Data collection as speed dating: new relationships - Activities and assets: shaping relationships - Recognised in the Dam
(58)
- Was that really participatory?
(59)
Conclusion
(59)
Conclusion
4.2 Analysing the process of action
(60)
A. Action Oriented or Action Biased?
(60)
4.4 4.4 Striking a participatory pose: the positioning of the spatial professional (70)
- Unintentional hierarchies?
B. Action reflecting continuum: praxis visions and missions
- Evolving definitions or lost in translation? - Finding ourselves in the Mid-review workshop
C. A participatory tunnel becoming increasingly narrow - Losing ourselves in our disciplines - Narrowing the participatory vision - The struggle against time
(61)
(70)
B. Approaches to the task
(70)
C. The Dam trajectory of the spatial professional
(73)
Conclusion (73)
Conclusion
(63)
4.3 Process of change / changes of process?
(64)
Attachments
A. Change in the studio: internal evolutions (64) - Grappling with knowledge and action: learning - Two is company but three is a crowd:
A. What makes spatial professionals participate in participation? - Translation - Mediating (power) relations
(62)
contents
D. Participation for future development of the Dam
- More than just a box of tools? - Leaving a stepping stone: Polytunnel - Precedents and inertia
_ Droom den Dam - 6 Oct. _ Midreview workshop - 19 Nov. _ Toekomst Tunnel exhibit - 13 & 14Dec.
Preface This booklet is an account of a process of engagement between the ‘participatory planning and design’-studio of the 2013 fall semester and the Dam-neighbourhood in Antwerp.
intro title
The introduction presents the context of the neighbourhood, the studio’s point of departure, the main stakeholders of the process and a quick overview of the studio’s timeline. In the next chapters, the studio’s process is described and evaluated, through its main participatory interventions and its learning and working process. Finally, there is a critical reflection on the studio as a whole and its role in the bigger frame of the participatory process in the Dam neighbourhood.
While the work of the studio included a lot of analysis and data-collection, and produced a variety of outputs that communicate these insights, and even evolved towards a starting point for design suggestions for the neighbourhood, these products are not the main focus of this report. Rather, the process through which the studio engaged with the neighbourhood’s socio-spatial transformation, and its stakeholders, is the core topic of this booklet. Providing a valuable contribution to the Dam’s participatory trajectory (and reflecting about the studio’s possible role in it) were considered more important than the material produced along the way. Nevertheless, this production is valuable in itself and can be found in the attachments to this booklet.
0
0.1 DAM context Introduced as a planning laboratory, the Damstudio engaged for three months with the Dam neighbourhood in the north of Antwerp. This area and its inhabitants find themselves on a turning point. Recent urban projects and upcoming developments are and will be profoundly transforming the spaces and social composition of the Dam. Aware of these changes, several inhabitants founded the DamcomitĂŠ (June 2013), an organisation that wants to be actively involved in the urban transformation process of their neighbourhood. Starting from a positive request (rather than protest against proposed changes) this formed a promising start for a participative process. A collective of three spatial professionals called NDVR got involved and included the studio for an intense semester of involvement with this fascinating neighbourhood.
1 and 2: past participatory initiatives 3, 4, 5; Dam Comite meetings as request for participation in the process of transformation of the Slaughterhouse and Lobroekdok, and by extension the neighbourhood 6
1
4
2
3
5
The slaughterhouse used to be the heart of the neighbourhood but closed down in 2007. Several proposals ranging from a hospital to a new IKEA generated buzz but also disappointment when it turned out they wouldn’t be realised. Currently, together with the plots along the Lobroekdok and the Noordschippersdok the slaughterhouse site is part of a project area defined by the City of Antwerp. A vision note about the future of the Dam neighbourhood (2012) was drawn up, but a more profound analysis of the neighbourhoods qualities and sociospatial needs could definitely enrich this vision further. Meanwhile, the neighbourhood already started transforming after the realisation of Park Spoor Noord in 2009. Composed of a mix of rowhouses in dense urban blocks, social housing, workshops and small businesses, the tissue of the Dam hosts both lifetime Dammers and inhabitants from diverse cultural backgrounds. Recently, many houses are being renovated or newly built, attracting couples and young families. While the Dam is enclosed by large infrastructures such as the railway, the highway and the Albert Canal it also contains neighbourhood-scale places such as the Dam square with its bars, the Lange Lobroekstraat with its restaurants specialised in meat dishes, and the local Noordschippersdok park.
aerial view of the DAM neighbourhood
project area as defined by the City of Antwerp
vision note for the Dam neighbourhood as proposed by AG Stadsplanning 7
0.2 Stakeholders Actors active at different spatial scales and with diverg- nificant role in that network as places and contacts for ing interests are involved in the process of transforma- different people, social groups and organisations. tion that the Dam neighbourhood is going through. Obviously the city of Antwerp is a stakeholder and sevFIrst to be mentioned are both present and future in- eral of its departments (partly) have a competence in habitants of the area, but also people working there or the Dam: AG Stadsplanning (vision note), Woonhaven visiting. (management of social housing), AG Vespa (city real estate company, owner of some plots in the project area), On the scale of the neighbourhood, many local organi- Stedelijk Wijkoverleg (communication between city adsations have an interest in the area’s social and spatial ministration and neighbourhood), ’t Spoor, het Weilantransformation. Elegast (neighbourhood centre for dje and ’t Groen Eilandje (primary schools), CDO Noord youth and adults), de Grijze Kat (neighbourhood organ- (centre for part-time education), OCMW (welfare), Buisation for Antwerp North’s ‘fourth world’), WEJA Bouw- urtregie (city service dealing with safety and cleanlispeelplein (youth organisation), Voem (association for ness), Zaalzoeker (city service providing locations for development and emancipation of muslims), Al Messira private and public events), Opsinjoren (logistic support (youth association founded by VOEM members), MSC for neighbourhood initiatives), Buurtsport (local sports Ahlan (association enhancing emancipation and diver- centre),... sity with a focus on youth), Vaderhuis (religiously inspired open house), Okra (association for people 55+), The owners of the Slaughterhouse site and the plots APGA (Antwerp Platform for General Poors), and Dam- along the Lobroekdok are also main stakeholders. The comité... city of Antwerp should be mentioned here again since AG Vespa owns several of the sites along the LobroekMoreover, several people are crucial in the neighbour- dok. hood’s social network. Often these individuals are involved in organisations or local initiatives, or do so- As mentioned in the introduction, NDVR and the plancial work, and they form crucial nodes between social ning studio also became stakeholders, or at least pargroups and organisations in the network as well. Sev- ticipants in the process, interested in adding value to it, eral of the local bars (and their owners) also play a sig- using their skills as engaged spatial professionals. 8
0.3 Studio vision The studio’s learning process, as well as the process of engagement with the Dam, developed through very concrete interventions as well as a parallel process of translation and reflection. The specific skills of the studio participants, as spatial professionals, were taken as the base for its vision and intentions. Being involved in a recently launched participatory process, the studio intended to trigger and enrich a forum for an open dialogue about the socio-spatial needs and transformations of the neighbourhood. This forum (as a dialogue and at specific moments realised in space) would function as a platform where different actors could exchange ideas, envision futures and coproduce solutions for the Dam neighbourhood. The forum was envisioned as inclusive and sustainable after the phasing out of the studio. While Damcomité considers each inhabitant of the Dam as a member, it does not reach all of the neighbourhood’s social groups equally. Therefore, one of the intentions of the studio was to make the forum more inclusive by broadening its range of participants, and by creating moments of exchange where these could meet.
Through spatial interventions and (co-)productive moments, the studio wanted to make this forum visible and tangible, strengthening the ongoing dialogue between neighbourhood organisations, spatial professionals inhabitants and city departments. The data and insights gathered during the semester served as inputs for those moments, intensifying and enriching the process. The specific contribution of the studio was in that sense to map and translate the collected data and insights into useful inputs for the forum, and in turn reflect upon, translate and map the outputs of the forum.
A particular challenge had to do with the limited timeframe of the studio as a short but effective contribution to the long-term participative process in the neighbourhood. Creating tangible output (in the form of small-scale spatial interventions and documents containing the collected insights) was a way of stimulating and strengthening the momentum, and leaving behind usable ideas that can further feed the forum, while the studio phases out.
More specifically, developing a ‘toolbox‘ (participatory and communicative methods, and mapping and translation techniques) became central in the studio work. Initially our focus was on developing methods to engage with the neighbourhood and understand it, collect data, and analyse it from different entry points. To feed the forum, this information then had to be mapped, translated and represented (graphically) which was done in the form of a Toolbox for a codesign workshop. In the later phases of the studio, the intention was more to synthesise this information, formulate structured narratives and make them accessible to a broader public. Grphical representation of the studio’s process 9
0.4 Studio timeline 6th of October Droom den Dam
10th of October Citylab 2050
1st of October-18th of November Studio work
A first step in the dialogue with and within the neighbourhood, was taken on the 6th of October. The Damcomité had organised a neighbourhood party by the name of ‘Droom den Dam’ (Deam the Dam), an event whereby a petition asking for involvement in the process of urban transformation was handed over to the alderman for spatial planning and urban development. The studio took this event as an opportunity to engage with the inhabitants for the first time and introduce its project to the neighbourhood. A spatial intervention was made (in the form of a white chalk line all the way through the Slaughterhouse site, with interactive experiments and posters along it) to trigger interaction with visitors and collect a variety of data.
The use of spatial interventions as a way to interact with the neighbourhood and trigger dialogue, was continued throughout the semester. An important catalysing moment was the Stadslab 2050, a city event where different organisations, inhabitants and professionals could share visions about a greener and more sustainable future for Antwerp. The studio participated in this event with a proposal to create an urban garden as a forum for the neighbourhood. It would be located near the Lobroekdok as a statement to link this part of the city’s project area with the neighbourhood. The event helped us to get in touch with specialised agencies and benefit from their advice.
After a short reflection on these first steps and some attempts to document, understand, synthesise and represent these first inputs (in graphs and statistics, on webapplications such as google maps,...) the next weeks revolved around exploration and data collection. The studio was split into three groups focusing on specific types of knowledge and research. A first group worked on mapping the social networks in the neighbourhood, the second group tried to understand and map the use of spaces in the Dam, and a third group continued in parallel the initiatives that had started with the Citylab proposal and developed small spatial interventions to engage with the neighbourhood’s inhabitants.
10
19th of November Midreview workshop
20th of November - 12th of December Exhibit preparation
13th & 14th of December Toekomst Tunnel exhibit
This intense period of mapping, understanding and reflecting culminated in a codesign workshop. As input, the information collected in the previous phase was translated into a ‘toolbox’, containing a large variety of documents and images representing different types of information related either to social network, use of space or temporary interventions. Bringing together city representatives, social professionals, local organisations and inhabitants, and outside advisors, the workshop was conducted around three tables focusing on a specific topic and output. In the margins of the workshop, and at each table the toolbox contributed to generate productive discussion and valuable input for the next studio phase.
Reflecting upon outputs of this workshop, a refinement and updating of this toolbox seemed essential, but at the same time there was the need to improve the acces to the data we had collected, both in terms of readability of the tools themselves and to open up the toolbox to a broader public. While several possible paths emerged, the studio neared its end and therefore, in the next phase, attention was focused on synthesising and translating the main themes that had emerged into readable storylines. We chose to organise a spatial intervention to spatialise the forum and leave behind a tangible result of our engagement with the neighbourhood.
In the last weeks of the studio the toolbox took the form of an exhibit that contained the main narratives about the neighbourhood, at the same time questioning them and projecting possible futures. These were combined with artworks related to the same issues, made by children of the local school and youth organisations. The exhibit took place in the Toekomst Tunnel (Future Tunnel), a politunnel that could afterwards remain in the neighbourhood as a multifunctional space for small events, workshops, urban agriculture or inspiring discussion. Ideally, the panels telling the stories about the Dam would also get a permanent spot in the neighbourhood.
11
midreview workshop title
Droom den Dam &
1
1.1 Droom den Dam Overview “On Sunday, October 6, 2013 the Damcomite will organize a great party by and for local residents on the Slachthuissite. It is a feast for young and old with tours, a presentation on the state of affairs, interview tables presenting different views, children’s entertainment, a bit of music and a bar. Why is this party? Because we dream together with the neighborhood of changes to the slaughter house, the Noordschippersdok and Lobroekdok where these places would stay suitable for everyone in the district. The city, the owner and developers want to develop this area. Today, Damcomite makes sure that the neighborhood can and may dream about the area!” - den Dam Blog Festival Program 14h00: start with walks on the site, presentation of the views of local residents, children games, food and drink, and moments to express own thoughts and ideas 16h00: officially moment with alderman Rob Van de Velde, handover petition signatures (720 signatures) 16h30: explanatory status and urban ambitions for the Slaughterhouse Site Noordschippersdok-Lobroekdok by an employee of the city 17.00: Performance of Sgt Pepper’s band Jimmeke ‘t hamster, a born and raised Dammer. 18h00: end 14
An introducing intervention After visiting the site of den Dam on the 1st of October as a site-seeing exploration day, we were informed of the Droom den Dam (Dream den Dam) festival which had been planned and communicated throughout the neighborhood since more than a month before. We decided to use this opportunity to meet and socialize with the inhabitants by arranging interactive panels that serve as a stop here and there along a line that was drawn within the entire premise of the slaughterhouse site. This line’s purpose was to guide walkers throughout the full site in a playful sense of zigzags and curving bends. People were intended to explore the area by walking along the line, read quotes written on walls, grounds and even windows and doors. These quotes were derived from a previous neighborhood festival meeting on the 1st of August where the people themselves expressed many thoughts and ideas about participation and the slaughterhouse site. Therefore, simultaneously while strolling along this journey, people would coincide with one of our simple and engaging stands. Participants The party was organized by the Damcomite who aimed to reach all residents of the neighborhood including all diverse groups. Although not everyone was able to come, and others expressed later that they felt they were not invited, there was a relatevily large crowd of old and young, gentrifiers and old Dammers some of whom were from other ethnicities such as Moroccan, Palestinian, or central African visitors. The main partici-
pants can be summarized as: - den Dam inhabitants - Damcomite - ndvr - alderman Rob Van de Velde - KU Leuven students Goals Since the main focus of the Strategic Spatial Planning studio of this semester was to investigate a participation process within the status quo in the masterplan planning of den Dam, we saw this initial moment as a great opportunity to engage with the local inhabitants of the area and grasp an understanding of how the people perceive their neighborhood and the coming changes. This event was a perfect opportunity for casual interviews with the people and to simultanuously introduce ourselves as KU Leuven students whose studio will take place within their neighborhood for the next three months. Through this introduction, we would inform the community of our interest in involving them in the participation process and that we would want to contact and reach them further throughout the semester if they are interested. To summarize our goals, we most importantly wanted to:
for further studio development.
Content
- introduce ourselves and present our university and studio.
Process - reach diverse inhabitants by experimenting our social Design interactive tools for information gathering skills and benefiting from the international diversity After the studio staff had informed us of the on-site acof the studio’s students in language skills and social tivities that would be conducted, mainly being a walk familiarity. - challenge our conventional methods in gathering in- along a drawn line throughout the full slaughterhouse formation in creative ways withing an atypical setting. site, we decided to disperse our small interactive interventions along that line. We tried to diversify as much as possible different techniques and methods to obtain information from the passers-by in a playful manner. We all, as students with an architectural/urban planning background, found it crucial to understand (1) how the inhabitants visualize and use their neighborhood, (2) what they spatially and socially like and dislike within their district and (3) what places and issues they wish to have or change within their community. Therefore, the The intention of the party was to open up the slaughterhouse various approaches we implemented within our simple site and let people explore the area for the first time and disgames targeted specific themes of spatial, social and/or cover its whereabouts. This exploration was designed through a participative themes. Please refer to attachment 1 for line that was drawn throughout the site. the outcomes of the methods used. Method
Stand no. 1: introduction The stand was a poster with the pictures of the studio - meet and socialize with as many inhabitants of the students introducing themselves and greeting the inneighborhood in one place as possible. habitants in a language they can speak. This was to ex- understand and listen to their needs and desires. press the diversity of the international students, hence - gather essential information of both spatial and social aspects that could serve as a base and trigger initiation Picture of stand no. 1 where student is introducing the studio bridging a possible gap with non-native inhabitants and its students to walkers at the beginning of the line journey within the neighborhood. 15
Stand no. 2: photomontage Passers-by were invited to have their photo taken with a note where they write on their thoughts, feelings, wishes, dreams etc. With time, a collage of pictures was made and people would read what others had written, thus creating a pleasant engaging atmosphere of social participation. Stand no. 3: confession booth Here, people were asked if they would like to confess any inner feelings about neighborhood particularities Picture of stand no. 2 where student is taking photo of a group they usually would not prefer to say in public. The booth of inhabitants after they have written some thoughts on paper consisted of an enclosing cloth with a voice recorder. to hang with those of others’. Stand no. 4: 3 words in a picture To understand what people associate with certain places, pictures were presented and people were asked to spontaneously write down three words that crossed their minds when seeing an image of a the particular place. These words could describe a feeling, location, memory etc. Stand no. 5: like/dislike Pictures of stand no. 5 where people locate areas they like and/ This poster was meant to spatialize places that people or dislike by tagging a thumb up or down sticker Picture of stand no. 3’s poster to invite people to anonymously like or dislike by pinning a thumb-up and thumb-down confess thoughts on a voice recorder. on the spot/location within the neighborhood. On the thumb tag they could write a reason of why they like or dislike this certain location or aspect. Stand no. 6: where do dammers go most? This map invited people to indicate the localitites of the places they most often go to in the neighborhood. The dot stickers’ accumulation of many people could show which spaces are most frequently used/visited within the area.
Pictures of stand no. 4 where student is asking people to “quickly” and “spontaneously” react to each picture by expressing 3 Stand no. 7: my dream of den Dam adjectives for certain places.
16
Pictures of stand no.6 where people allocate a dot sticker to most frequently visited place for different purposes and activites.
This map spatializes dreams for specific vacant or built areas within the neighborhood by tagging the space with a note of what they would like it be or changed into. Stand no. 8: test your knowledge about den Dam Here, the final stand serves as a teaser to the walkers and strollers by testing their knowledge and awareness about den Dam through a simple game of a series of questions. The questions are themes with 4 different options. Each option is a statistical value corresponding to a neighborhood in Antwerp, den Dam being one of Picture of stand no. 7 where passers-by spatialize their dreams them. The winner is the one who can relate which of the into places and spaces on the neighborhood’s urban plan. statistics is the one that reflects the correct answer to den Dam’s statistics.
In addition, students hold little responisibility of the overall event’s dynamics giving them more space for creativity and casual socialization and people do not usually suspect the students’ intentions and so welcome them open-heartedly. Suggestions An occasion like the Droom den Dam neighborhood festival is always of good prospect especially when designed for social feedback. Of course the studio experienced some setbacks which could suggest future points to take in consideration and tackle when intending to design for such explorative events. These setbacks were:
Conclusion Language hindrance Most inhabitants struggled to interact with the international students in communithesizing it into useful output, we were able to formucating their thoughts and emotions in the English lanlate basic conclusions and assumptions that guided us guage. towards next steps within the studio framework. Our socialization and physical presence on such an imporPicture of stand no. 8 where a student conducts an awareness Social background Students with architectural/urban tant day for the community helped introducing us to test game between several competing inhabitants. planning backgrounds had little background and exthe sensitivites of the process at hand. perience in social work and need to rely on instinctive All of the stands were surprisingly effective in igniting social skills beside their professional skills and experinteractions between people and initiating engaging tise. Nevertheless these skills sufficed to receive a large discussions. The information obtained was much richer amount of input on social network mapping and their than our initial expectation and the socializing and talktranslation into space. ing with diverse strata of the neighborhood’s population of young and old, immigrant and native, gentrifiers Time limitation The short notice of the party date withand old Dammers aided in shaping our understanding in the beginning of the studio allowed limited time to and sensing the active dynamics of den Dam and its create more studied and diverse panels and more sucinhabitants. ... And the line continues back to the start cessful media and tools. 17 After summing up the information gathered and syn-
1.2 Midreview workshop Subtitle Overview
Networking: To involve diverse players like inhabitants, professional advisors of various disciplines, city develThe Workshop was used to realize various goals for the opers, private developers, students and academicians studio and also designed to anticipate the desire of in- in the process. Goal is to share and learn from each othhabitants to be informed and engaged more directly in er in addition to contributing insights and ideas. the planning process. The goals mainly were: To Evaluate the Process: To study, observe and evaluate Share Information: Communicate all the valuable data the process of conducting a workshop and our princicollected in a usable, understandable and flexible for- ples behind its design. The mid-review played an immat by use of the ‘Toolbox’ and empower the commu- portant role in evaluating the effectiveness of the worknity with more knowledge and awareness about their shop design and productiveness of the toolbox. Goals
After having collected a range of different kinds of data on site over the course of 2 weeks, we compiled the information into what we have termed a ‘Toolbox’. Since the core business of the studio was to experiment with different techniques and methods for public involvement in the planning and design process, we decided after various discussions that organizing a ‘Workshop’ would be a suitable way to share our toolkit and at the same time test the potential of the material it contains and the overall usability of the format in a setting with own neighbourhood. different degrees of public involvement. Test the Toolbox: To test the tool’s adaptability and data The idea arose to integrate and combine this workshop requirements. Adaptability refers to the general public with our mid-review, a moment where we would get understanding and capacity of the tools to be utilized. some first feedback from an external jury on our pro- Data requirements imply that tools have to be useful gress up to now. We saw the workshop as a perfect fo- in providing meaningful results. This goal is to establish rum to exhibit our work, explore the potentials of the a valuable collection of information in a toolbox as a toolkit, design a democratic planning exercise with means for further usage and reference within design & public involvement and invite our jury to experience, participation workshops in the future. evaluate and give feedback. This chapter focuses on the goals and design of the workshop, the use of the toolkit, a description of the discussions and outcomes of the workshop and finally some conclusions and lessons learnt combined with suggestions for future value addition. 18
Involve Public: To engage the public and facilitate their desires to be part of informed planning decision making. To involve the public in an inclusive way. Inclusive refers to ensure that a sample of the diversity of the community is reflected within the mix of participants.
Workshop design Once the goals were formulated, the next task was to design the method and process to conduct the workshop. The overall aim of the workshop was to provide a way to create an inclusive experience in a limited amount of time, to gain hands-on-skill, and to gather feedback and as such also use it as a moment to investigate how the data we collected so far could be completed and fine-tuned. The basic principles for organizing the workshop were: it is participatory, it is informal and it is time-limited. The Second consideration was to guide participants through this coproductive experience. In order to do so, a number of elements were designed together with the toolkit: Toolbox: A toolbox with collected information and
Social network analysis Spatial analysis Intervention
data was meant to present participants with information that could generate clear choices and demonstrate how the socio-spatial knowledge collected could assist in future planning decisions. The Toolbox consisted of three aspects of information: a social network study, a socio-spatial study and Intervention. These tools were meant to trigger the discussion or be able to simulate design choices visually, whether in 2d or 3d.
through fast and limited time, to ignite first-thought ideas and urge participants to work together towards solutions and suggestions. The first hour was meant for a brief introduction to relevant tools. This was followed by brainstorming and setting important issues. The second hour was more focused on suggesting solutions with use of different themes on each table as product of output. In the final hour, a larger public was invited to sit around the table and discuss the solutions sugThree tables, each with a specific theme, and a different gested and comment/add value to them. medium to work with and thus a different way to produce output: 1) organization and action: working with a Student’s role: Students played three roles: Moderator’s, timeline 2) Stories & image: working with the technique Co-Moderators and Observers. Moderator’s performed of collage 3) Program & vision: working with a wooden the role of stimulating and conducting the discussion model of the project site. Three different themes were on each table. They helped participants with informaproposed to support the discussion on three tables. The tion by use of the toolbox when required. Co-Moderthemes acted in two ways: one to initiate the idea of ator’s worked together with Moderators in providing discussion, second to be used as product of outcomes. information and formulating outputs. The Observers’ task was to read the dynamics of each table and critiDiverse participants: To achieve comprehensiveness, cally observe the workings of the workshop as a whole. each table was meant to have at least one of the following: Inhabitant, Social worker, Expert in a certain field accompanied by two students. A time slot of 3 hours: The workshop was an intensive three hour event where each hour new dynamics of exposure, interaction, discussion and exchange was introduced to participants. The workshop was designed 19
+
subtitle
Observers
text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text Toolbox text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text
Concept
text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text Moderators/ Output Makers
Hour
Discussion process: In the first 30 minutes, the participants were introduced to the toolbox. To initiate the discussion, the moderator at each table was aware and prepared to use pre decided tools. The moderators would then gradually introduce different tools according to the nature of the conversation, in order to reinforce the discussion. Within the next half an hour, the participants already started brainstorming their ideas, and the discussions were being shaped by the viewpoints and needs of the inhabitants. After that, a short break of ten minutes was introduced, so that observers were able to give feedback to moderators. The aim of the feedback was to en20
Public
Public Discussion
Output
1
Inhabitants/ Experts/Social workers
Subtitle
subtitle
Subtitle
Moderators/ Output Makers
Hour
2
Moderators
Inhabitants/ Experts/Social workers
hance the moderation process and set the moderator’s mindset towards the intended output. The second hour was dedicated to solutions and possible interventions to solve discussed issues. After the first two intense hours, for the next step the discussion was moved to a more public scale in the welcome hall. Here, all the participants were asked to present their observations and suggestions that evolved from the previous discussions to the general public. One participant from each table summarized and presented the theme/topic, which they chose to be the most important to deal with. Eventually they presented their conclusions, which could serve as a possible out-
Hour
3
Inhabitants/ Experts/Social workers
come and basis for further discussions. In the final hour, a larger public was invited to sit around the table and discuss the solutions suggested. This was aimed to record the larger public’s opinion/ comment to enhance the quality of the solutions. The jury that gave feedback for this mid-review workshop also participated at the table discussions. The motivation behind this set up was that, by being active participants they could see the toolbox in action, and gauge its effectiveness within this setting. The jury was hence engaged with the dynamics of the workshop. This would also let the jury to judge the procedure which we adopted for the studio more effectively.
Three tables, three themes Timeline (Organization & Action)
Collage (Stories & Image)
Model (Program & Vision)
The timeline meant to delineate a process or several processes and try to find key actors and roles that could start such a process and how to stage each phase and prioritize them.
The collage was mainly meant to represent a photomontage of possible images within a 3D view of den Dam in search for an identity and profound image envisioned by its inhabitants.
The model could be flexibly used by inserting blocks of various dimensions and heights within the overall 3D urban fabric. The main focus was to work within the slaughterhouse site and the Noordshipersdok.
Topics to be covered - Participation methods - Spatial interventions - Create engagement - Phasing
Topics to be covered - Dreams - Experiences - Public space - Identity
Topics to be covered - Density - Centrality - Connections - Functions
table 2
table 3
scheme / figure description
table 1
21
Table dynamics and Outcomes Timeline
Collage
Model
Actors- 1 inhabitant, 2 social workers, 1 city professubtitle sional, 1 academic (urban planning background), 2 students text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text Topic of Interest- planning staging, youth center, postext text text text text text text text text text text text sible participation process, focus on community needs text text text text text text text text text text text text and priorities vs masterplan text text text text text text text text text text text text text textsocial text text text text text textambition text text Toolstext usednetwork, casetext examples, text text text note,text dreams den text Damtext text text text text text text text text text text text text
Actors– 2 inhabitants, 2 social workers, 1 city professional, 2 academic (urban planning background), 2 students.
Actors- 1 from city lab, 1 from city services, 3 inhabitants, owner of the site, 2 students
Outcome- major phasing steps, small step for gaining city trust, a process for possible youth center
22
Topic of Interest- Basic amenities like ATM, future development of Slaughter house site, identity of neighborhood, sustainability, phasing of future plans.
Topic of Interest- density, mobility, connections, program, functions. Tools used – spatial tools (routes, photos)
Tools used- dream map, dream categories, routes, Outcome- shaped various development potentials Barriers, spatial qualities, actor characteristics, network along slaughter house and dock with use of model. analysis Outcome- Atm dream machine (regaining trust, connecting the need to meeting place), slaughterhouse site - as linkage between different parts in the neighborhood (slachthuis site and lange lobroekstraat)
Conclusions Workshop Methodology: Effective participation: The workshop provided adequate opportunity for effective participation, including placing questions from inhabitants and advice from experts. The process cut across diverse professional disciplines and enabled participants to connect the dots and explore solutions across a variety of topics. The participation was inclusive and transparent through faceto-face discussions and collaboration. Creativity: The interaction between different tools, themes and a diverse range of participants was very versatile and creative. The use of visualization tools encouraged the interactions between participants. Benefits of 3D Massing Model: A three-dimensional model was used as a tool to analytically explain the issues of the neighborhood and also used to construct the planning ideas. The model theme was most playful, effective and interactive in the whole process. Too little time: The main goal of our workshop revolved around a public involvement process, which worked effectively. However, in a scenario where outcomes are expected, a more effective time planning and investment would be necessary. The time to study and resolve planning issues of a neighborhood, to make sound decisions was very limited. We learnt that time is an important factor, especially when the focus of the workshop is to review and refine proposals with public involvement.
Background information is required: It is important to exchange background information amongst participants in advance. This allows a clear knowledge of participant’s potential to his (her) counterpart. Hence, the participants can interact and ask feedbacks more effectively from each other on particular decisions. Be clear about what you want to achieve as an outcome: It is also important to inform participants about the intention behind the workshop and table discussion, to be clear about what they want to achieve by the end of it.
Suggestions Practicality and Time management: A workshop with public process must be designed and planned to enable effective feedback and planning-decisions. To achieve that, participants should be given background information prior to the workshop and enough time to see and understand tools that has been produced.
Asking the right questions: The key to a successful public involvement process rests in the type of questions asked of the participants. These should be defined interactively, but will definitely also define the type and Toolbox Tools as enablers: Tools provided processed informa- character of the public involvement process and its outtion, knowledge and means to trigger the discussion at comes. each table. Placing information at the public’s fingertips: The inten- Transparency: It’s important to inform participants tion to provide the public with all the raw data resourc- about the intention behind the workshop and table dises was to present an overview of information about cussion, and what we hope to achieve at the end. This their neighbourhood and give them access to a more makes sure that stakeholders are aware of the overall comprehensive analysis of its different social and spa- expectations so that they can align their motivation, co-design attitude and decisions. tial aspects. Not all tools are adaptable: Many tools were designed for specific applications. Few of them were not adapt- Public-based Toolbox: Tools must be readable to the general public. Tools must be presented in a more loable to the area of discussion on each table. Presentation style was too architectural: The format calised way to accommodate simple drawings and illusof designing and illustrating the tools was difficult for trations to be used for community-generated planning exercises. A good way to design a toolbox is to create general public to read. Too much information: The toolbox kit in itself was too an easy-to-use, compact and understandable database. elaborate and not easy to be managed. 23
Intervention
2
2.1 Introduction Temporary spatial intervention as a method From the outset, our studio aimed at active involvement in the neighbourhood. Therefore, we chose to let the studio run a cyclic process of consulting and producing towards in the Dam. While certain events were organised to ‘consult’ and gather data, a spatial intervention provided an opportunity to ‘produce’. After processing and interpreting gathered data, a crucial step for us was to feed this interpretation back to the neighbourhood. The intervention is envisioned as the implementation of an object or program in the Dam initiating interaction with its surroundings. The method of organising a spatial intervention allowed us to trigger reactions on our interpretation, whether
to confirm or oppose our findings, or to reflect further. Another consideration was the possibility of creating awareness among the inhabitants. By creating something concrete, something spatial in the Dam, we could draw inhabitant’s attention for our studio’s presence in the Dam and even more important for the larger process at hand. This way, the intervention is a visualisation of the ongoing engagement and a tool to keep the momentum going. The choice for a temporary intervention made sense: from a practical perspective, it required less planning and resources than a permanent one. Using the book Urban Catalyst - the power of temporary use by Oswalt, Overmeyer & Misselwitz as a theoretical background, it became clear to us that a temporary intervention
could serve multiple purposes. It would allow people to start ‘claiming’ space before an entire masterplan was developed. This could both strengthen their involvement in deciding on the future of the space and serve as a testing ground for different types of programs to see which ones would work in the neighbourhood. We believe successful temporary programs could consolidate into permanent ones. Moreover, showing a concrete example of how to use a space can empower the neighbourhood in continue the process of ‘claiming’ unused space. Additionally, by achieving successes with temporary interventions, the voices of the inhabitants might gain weight in the conversation between different stakeholders.
scheme / figure description
27
Subtitle
2.2 Stadslab 2050 to exchange ideas about the neighbourhood and its future. This is related to how Henry Sanoff defines the Our first step towards a spatial intervention was forum: triggered by the Stadslab 2050 event at the 10th of October. Stadslab 2050 is an initiative by the Antwerp “When public forums are convened that encourage municipality, with the aim of establishing “an urban community participation, people can openly express laboratory to help accomplish the transition to a their opinions, make necessary compromises, and arrive sustainable city”, a platform for everyone involved or at acceptable decisions. By involving as many interests interested in sustainable development. The event was as possible, not only is the product strengthened by the an occasion for different organisations, inhabitants and wealth of input, but the user group is strengthened as well businesses to come together and share their visions on by learning more about itself.” (Sanoff, 2000) Intentions
subtitle text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text
scheme / figure description
28
a greener and more sustainable future for Antwerp. The goal of the event was to provide a stage for project proposals contributing to a more sustainable city and to support them, facilitating their realization by offering the opportunity to connect with experts and organisations and to gain city subsidies. Our main aim here was to take the studio a step further. The event allowed us to gain a certain credibility and attention for our studio by presenting a concrete project to a professional audience, giving us the opportunity to acquire additional advice and support of experienced actors.
This forum incorporates and connects the social and spatial interpretation of the word, giving a physical form to a debate to be set up in the Dam. This can be achieved by on the one side starting up and building further on a participation process and on the other side by doing a temporary intervention as a trigger for dialogue. We consider both as essential to strengthen and empower the neighbourhood. Instead of awaiting negotiations between the main stakeholders and the city, inhabitants can start playing an active role in the process of decision-making.
The proposal of our studio consisted of a small scale project at the dockside in den Dam. The focus was on the idea of creating a forum for all the inhabitants of den Dam to meet each other and organise themselves
Since Stadslab focussed on urban green, this became our main trigger to attract people in the project. This can be realised in various ways and shapes, depending on the needs of the inhabitants. In this way we wanted
to create a sustainable environment on both an ecological level as well as- and most important for us- a social or community level. Green is in this way used as a tool rather than a goal on itself.
Methods
scheme / figure description
Dreams according to percentage of inhabitants with these desires (data from Droom den Dam event)
This concept is further refined, based on the data, we collected during the first event in the Dam we participated in. For our studio, ‘Droom den Dam’ was centered around acquiring information and getting to know the inhabitants of this neighbourhood, their dynamics and concerns, took place on the 6th of October. Among others, we asked people about the places they visit in the Dam and the dreams they have for certain spots. One of the striking facts that came forward in this research, was how almost everyone was meeting people and using space in the southern part of the Dam. The Lange Lobroekstraat and Dam Square were intensively used, while the Lobroekdok was completely ignored. However, everyone (we had interviewed) was aware of the dock in the North and many had visions associated with it. This led us to choose an area for our temporary intervention at the dockside, to reconnect the water with the 29
Dam. In this way we want to restore the connection, which has been lost over time and gave den Dam his typical image of neighbourhood of boatmen. To establish this connection, we identified a central area near the crossing of Lange Lobroekstraat and the Kalverstraat. By linking this central point in the Dam, we wanted to create a sort of spine, an area which can lead to many prosperous potentials. Conversation with city employees (AG Stadsplanning) brought a captain’s house to our attention. This small building alongside the dock is abandoned and owned by the city and patrimonium. We considered this space as a potential operational base for our studio , on the one side to realize a temporary intervention while waiting on further plans, on the other side to establish a platform for the inhabitants, a sort of trigger to dialogue to get people more involved in the upcoming ideas of the city. The temporary use would contain community based activities together with the inhabitants and local organisations. This event required a first translation of our data gathered from the people, to a more professional language. So actually the first time we used our skills as spatial professionals or sociologists to make a link between the ideas of the people and the more specialised organisations and city services which are not connected to the context of den Dam. 30
Our proposal was therefore also more a kind of vision or a first suggestion rather than a fixed idea. This with the aim to gain the attention on the professional level and be a catalyst for further connections. In this way the project would work as a double catalyst: on the one hand to trigger support and convenient contacts and on the other hand to introduce the idea of a spatial intervention as a catalyst for further prospective initiatives, so a catalyst on both a social as well as on a spatial level.
able to consult a certain organisation or specialist, a presentation part and a cooperation part. The last part was the most interesting to discuss, develop further and refine the idea together with specialists. We met people from Samenlevingsopbouw, professors in urbanism, Opsinjoren and ‘Tuin in de stad’. Since all of them had a different background and experience, it was very useful to exchange ideas and get tips from them. It was also motivational for our studio: to get to know that experienced actors saw a lot of potential in our idea, encouraged us to continue and to pursue realisation.
Who was involved?
In the end, we weren’t granted any subsidies, but we won the support of the city and organisations we met during Stadslab 2050. Additionally, AG stadsplanning started carrying out the legalisation process to get the site in possession of the neighbourhood. In the meantime, a vision note about the project has been communicated to others from AG stadsplanning, such as Kitty Haine. It’s getting further elaborated by NDVR.
Stadslab 2050 was introduced to our studio by the city itself (AG stadsplanning) via NDVR. They considered it to be useful to take part in the event and workshop to get in touch with specialised people and possibly compete for subsidies. AG stadsplanning came up with this idea, hoping to ‘claim’ the dockside to avoid project investors from starting to develop it into an expensive, exclusive waterfront. They felt it would be stronger when a neighbourhood related organisation would propose idea instead of a city service. Furthermore, Stadslab is an event which supports bottom up initiatives and therefore it made more sense if we presented with such proposal. As we could fit the urban green approach of Stadslab and the claiming of the dock into our studio intentions, we elaborated this vision further and took part in the Stadslab event. The event itself was divided into three parts: a consultation part, in which every participant was
31
Conclusions
Stadslab 2050 was brought to our attention by NDVR and especially AG stadsplanning . They strongly advised us to enter this event. As Stadslab 2050 already took place in the second week of our studio time, composing a proposal motivated us to quickly think about a concrete impact of our studio in the neighbourhood. Moreover it instigated swift processing of data gathered at the Droom den Dam-event four days earlier. At the same time, because of the limited timeframe, we, as ‘spatial professionals’ went back to familiar ways. The concept of the intervention at the captain’s house contained several spatially oriented ideas - connecting the centre with the outskirts, using an existing road as a ‘spine’ etc. It was based on preliminary research data, but also on a first spatial reading of the neighbourhood, perhaps slightly disregarding the way inhabitants experience their neighbourhood. Or more particularly, we had a very ambitious idea to profoundly change the perception of the neighbourhood with a first intervention, both claiming and reconnecting a forgotten space in the Dam and establishing a spatial and social forum to (re)connect inhabitants and strengthen community participation. While ambition is necessary, we might have been slightly 32
too optimistic about the impact we could produce. However, as a catalyst for further development of connections and initiatives it certainly generated some positive effects. We were able to introduce the idea of the temporary intervention as a valuable strategy to both the city and neighbourhood inhabitants. City efforts have been made to facilitate such intervention, while inhabitants were found willing to cooperate in community-based activities. For the studio as well, it has proven to be a useful experience. The positive feedback at Stadslab 2050 encouraged us to start looking for ways to realise the project intentions, initiating a set of small ‘interventions’ in the neighbourhood to raise awareness of the existence and potential of the dock. Perhaps in this, while attempting to revive the connection with the dock, we lost focus on the objective of creating the forum, which, in the trajectory of our studio, appeared to be a more important process to be set up.
2.2 Toekomsttunnel Subtitle Intentions
scheme / figure description
When initialising this studio, we knew it would be a small part of a much larger trajectory going on in the Dam. To finalise this studio, for us, it was necessary to both reflect on the semester, identifying what we had learned from it, and to move forward, determining what we wanted to leave behind to contribute to the greater whole. In order to do that, an additional step of translation seemed essential. Until then, the main focus was the gathering of information and collecting it into comprehensive graphics. Now, the question of how to make this information more readable and accessible led us to the need to start differentiating the still ‘raw’ material. By further interpreting the information, a dialogue could be established between our translation and the neighbourhood’s own perceptions. While the traditional end of a studio happens by means of a jury evaluating the work, we felt it was equally important in this case, having worked an entire semester around neighbourhood involvement, to have our work presented to the neighbourhood. Giving back what we learned was a completion of a second large consult-produce cycle in our studio process, initiated at the mid review workshop. The presentation of the material could not be an endpoint, it had to enable the neighbourhood to continue the larger trajectory
of participation. Thus, we decided to do this in the form of an exhibition. Firstly, we wanted the material that we presented to be useful for further discussions, opinions and debates about the city plans. However, this exhibition had to do more than displaying the concluding results of our studio to inhabitants. It had to elucidate the neighbourhood in a different way for the inhabitants and modify the accompanied perceptions. Using our assets as ‘spatial professionals’, we translated local data and urbanism concepts into a series of narratives. These narratives are a new toolbox, facilitating conversation between different actors about future plans. The studio envisioned them to be adopted and adapted by the inhabitants, slowly becoming grand stories as they are passed on by initial exhibition visitors to other inhabitants, adding in their own interpretation. This final intervention was the result of several processes in our studio work melting together towards this event. On the one hand a clear narrative about the creation of a spatial impact in the neighbourhood ran through our entire studio discourse. On the other hand dreams, stories and ideas of inhabitants fed into the eventual outcome of the intervention idea. Both the Stadslab 2050 idea of creating a forum and the desire of a group of inhabitants for a garden or an urban gardening project come together in this intervention. With our exhibition we are aiming to answer both 33
desires at once. It was essential to fulfil the aspect of desires of the neighbourhood. In the Toekomsttunnel, creating a forum with the Toekomsttunnel. By creating an actual space for further discussions and meetings, and providing content triggering further dialogue, the exhibition could become a forum in both the social and the spatial sense of the word. To make the forum visible is therefore an indispensable step in the participation process. Instead of posting this forum in a fixed space, we decided to design a moveable polyvalent space that could be positioned in different places in the neighbourhood, thus making the forum a laboratory as well. By creating this space, we could enable and give form to ‘claiming’ of empty space, not only in the project area but possibly everywhere in the Dam, for a variety of programs that were considered necessary by inhabitants.
scheme / figure description
34
we could show the inhabitants a concrete example of one of the community-based activities the forum could host. Therefore we envisioned a space that could host this activity. This led us the form of the polytunnel for the moveable polyvalent space.
After our exhibition we donated the polytunnel to the neighbourhood to use for a variety of activities. In winter people can use it as place to meet, have a drink or have neighbourhood festivities, similar to the activities the former Buurthuis hosted, and from spring on it can be used as a polytunnel itself to grow vegetables. In any case, will the polytunnel be a space for dialogue and allow claiming a spot in the Dam for certain amount of time. In this way the social and spatial forum is realised combined with different desires of the neighbourhood In the meantime, the idea of urban gardening and makes the polytunnel itself, everytime it’s operating, took shape during the process. After interviews, a symbol of neighbourhood initiative and the openness questionnaires and data collection via small scale to engage in debate. interventions in Dam, it was remarkable that this was the topic that was mentioned most often. Because Methods many people were interested in this topic and were searching for a place, we consider the idea of urban To realise the goals we set ourselves for this event, it gardening very appropriate for a first temporary was decided an exposition would be a suitable format. spatial intervention to strengthen the dynamics in the The exhibition was for us not merely showing the neighbourhood. Furthermore, this form of intervention neighbourhood what the studio worked on. Instead of seemed relatively simple to realize and if necessary being a finished result, it was meant as a transformative quite easy to remove and can it be further developed tool to change inhabitant’s perceptions and to catalyse to pop-up shops, a community space where customers debate. It was important to make the neighbourhood can get food and drinks made from home-grown part of the exhibition. Therefore, we didn’t only include fruit and vegetables, which was also one of the main graphic material, but also objects and contributions
Subtitle
35
by the neighbourhood. Furthermore, we were able to interact with inhabitants during the exposition, as we guided visitors through the narratives and they could give us direct feedback about it. Equally important was the set-up of the exhibition: this process was an opportunity to connect with neighbourhood actors. Additionally, moving the polytunnel was an excellent way of attracting attention in the neighbourhood.
festivities and several organisation hosted Saint Nicholas and Christmas parties around this time, we decided to seize this opportunity to link the festive opening of the Toekomsttunnel to one of these parties. Cooperating with Elegast and hosting our exhibition at their Christmas party Friday, December 13th, provided us the chance of reaching new people and embedding our work in a local event. This first introduction of the Toekomsttunnel was followed by a second exposition day at the dock side, near the captain’s house, to link our exhibition to our intervention process of trying to reconnect the dockside to the neighbourhood as first launched during Stadslab 2050.
In order to achieve the change of perception we were aiming for, we decided to structure the exhibition around narratives. Each narrative integrated information gathered by the three different groups - so social, spatial and intervention-related - into one storyline about the neighbourhood. For this, we started from Who is involved? a number of typical statements heard about the Dam and added in different layers to make people reflect on The realisation of this pop-up exhibition wasn’t merely this ‘cliche’ and become aware of the potential it holds. about our studio creating an event. It gave us the Every narrative is constructed as a threefold step, going opportunity to involve the neighbourhood and activate from a concrete to symbolic and from past to future in the network we had mapped during the previous weeks. Furthermore, with the short timeframe to realise a metaphorical way. the exhibition - only three weeks separated the initial At the same time, we asked children of the Dam to decision from the eventual exhibition date - additional draw their interpretation of certain things, related to support of both inhabitants and organisations in our narratives. Five different questions were composed, realisation was close to indispensable for the students. such as “What is the perfect space?”, “How do you find something you lost?” and “What do you want inside your neighbourhood, and what can stay outside?”. This allowed different translations of the neighbourhood, ours and theirs, to start communicating.
First of all we needed to fix a date and place for our exhibition. In order to attract attention to the exhibition, we envisioned a festive event to accompany it. To reach many people we decided to cooperate with Elegast, as they are one of the best known organisations in As the December months are naturally filled with den Dam, and use their winter party to introduce our 36
Subtitle
scheme / figure description
37
work. Besides the fact that we were allowed to be a chance to fulfil this desire. This action will symbolize Conclusions part of their festivities, we also enjoyed a lot practical a first big step in the cooperation between one of the support from their side. This varied from tools to build most important stakeholders, the owner of the site and The choice for a pop-upexhibition as final outcome the polytunnel and transport heavy material to cooking the inhabitants themselves. At the same time, while was driven by both the need to show the information pots and stocking space after the exhibition. The building at the slaughtherhouse site, we raised a lot of to the neighbourhood and to have a format that was cooperation with Elegast was also a success because, curiosity amongst our neighbours on site, the Antwerp feasible to establish in a short time. Involving different first of all we could reach a relative large group of Boxing Academy and the meat processing company actors in the process, was a great way to trigger more inhabitants and second because of the fact that they‘re ‘Frigo’. During the construction process, we enjoyed interest in the outcome of the exposition and made well known in the neighbourhood, so when we were physical and mental support by them. This manifested several of the take the time to visit it. Additionally inviting people a lot of them reacted very enthusiastic itself in, for example borrowing some drills, a daily chat the decision to host one day of the exhibition at when we mentioned we were working together with and even a small trust relationship . the Elegast party helped us reach new people. As in Elegast. previous interventions, promoting our event turned For the organisation of our Saturday event we out to be challenging. Because of time constraints, our Secondly we needed a place to build up the polytunnel wanted to make use of the city supported initiative of interventions involved some ad-hoc organisation and itself, the frame and the furniture for inside. Since we Opsinjoren called ‘winterfeest’.Therefore we used our quick decisions. Promotion of the Toekomsttunnel only needed shelter, electricity, enough space ànd a safe connections with Stedelijk Wijkoverleg, as they are started a week in advance. While we could rely on the place where to stock all our material, the slaughterhouse part of the city administration themselves and have a help of for example Damcomité to spread the word site was our only option to find this in the Dam. closer connection with Opsinjoren. With their help, we about events, several people were unable to come on Therefore we asked the owner of the slaughterhouse were able to organise a ‘winterfeest’ and get logistic as such short notice. Hosting the event two consecutive site for his cooperation and permission to do this on well as financial support on a shorter notice than the days and letting it take place together with a known his site. Not only was he enthusiastic about the idea required procedure term of three weeks. neighbourhood party tried to mitigate this, but earlier and agreed to let us work on the construction of the promotion and vision about this final project might polytunnel here, he even provided us a space where the Content wise we had the support of the school ‘t Spoor, have enabled us to reach more people. polytunnel could be permanently positioned after the the Vadershuis and Bouwspeelplein. These organisations pop-upexhibition. This way, he gave us an opportunity work with children of den Dam and took part in our aim In general, people visiting the Toekomsttunnel were to eventually implement urban agriculture at the site. to combine our work with reflections of children. Lastly very appreciative towards the projects. They could This has an important consequence, in that sense we used our connections with Damcomité to spread relate to the narratives we brought. If we succeeded that the inhabitants, who were already suggesting the word, both physically, through flyers and posters as in changing their perspective in the way we hoped a temporary intervention at the slaughterhouse well as digitally, through blog, website and facebook. remains to be seen as the process continues, which site since the start of our studio, thus were given the actually has already, a little bit initiated, at the 38
moment, by the permission we got from the owner Lobroekdok a world apart from the Dam, seem to be of the slaughterhouse site. Now it will depend on the very deeply rooted and will take a more permanent, response of the inhabitants before our first catalyst can structural approach to change. be considered as succesful. The way current events played out, the polytunnel will Although the proposals for a spatial intervention all be posted on a corner of the Slaughterhouse site. As had the objective of reconnecting the dock, we have there are far less barriers for the inhabitants to use this realized that this might be too complex to solve with space, this practical agreement with the owner of the a first temporary intervention. Throughout our process site might improve the chances of inhabitants actually of trying to involve people in a project around the using the polytunnel and establishing the public forum captain’s house, we found people had trouble to see we envisioned there. By letting go of one of our goals, the revival of the dock as a real possibility, both because the others have become more feasible. People liked the the place has been ill-maintained and overlooked for so idea of having a moveable polyvalent space, some of long, and because it deals with accessibility problems. them already had concrete ideas in mind on possible The physical and mental barriers present, making the uses in the future, such as a moveable party tent for
birthday parties. Furthermore, this has significant consequences for the participation process: a first step is taken in a cooperation between one of the main stakeholders and the inhabitants of the Dam. Beside the aim of establishing a forum and encouraging critical reflection, we consider this as an important effect of our spatial intervention and are convinced that it will lead to further community based initiatives.
scheme / figure description
39
In-between phases
3
3.0 Process In-Between INTRODUCTION
TAKING OFF
As explained, the process of the strategic planning studio contains two important milestones (‘Droom Den Dam’ and ‘workshop’), and two main interventions (‘City lab’ and ‘Toekomsttunnel’). The “ mediating moments” that took place after each milestone and its related intervention are discussed in this chapter. We call these ‘mediating moment’: 1) taking off 2) reflection 1.0 3) Being in the field 4) reflection 1.1 5) wrap up. (fig 1.)
EMPTY KAART-EN : Elements : Participation , design
To understand the the dynamics of each of these stages, the studio based on 3 different elements: analysis, design and participation (fig 2.). The importance of these elements was defined by the particular question we wanted to solve at each moment.
Image 1. field trip - taking off
42
Fig 1 Location of mediating moments
Fig 2.
Cross crossing elements of the first part of studio: Analysis , Design, Participation
Image 2. on the board - analysis process
What information do we want to gather and for what purposes? What is the information we need and for which purpose? The first phase relied on the “Dam Committee”, which was a pivotal organization for the studio. They proved to be a crucial partner to reach more people and to strengthen and validate the participatory process. After we met with people from the city and the dam committee we realized the need to get more information about the neighbourhood and its internal community dynamics. To reach this we focused in this early stage on the needs, dreams and perception of the neighbourhood. At the same time we expected to find a way to introduce ourselves to the community and reach people that represent minorities, which we couldn’t reach through the already established contacts. Making use of both the party “Droom Den Dam” organized by the community itself, and the space they designated for this party, the
3.1 Reflection 0 abandoned Slaughterhouse, we planned our first ac- SETTLING DOWN: tion to directly approach the community. Elements: Analysis and Design At the party we used games to discover the community, to learn their opinions, expectations and their relationship with the neighbourhood. For instance, “Fill in the map”. In this game people expressed their dreams, needs, point of views, likes/dislikes, etc. in blank maps of the area. Another game we organised that day, let the people follow a line on the floor. In this way they discovered the site and were confronted with quotes of earlier interviews about the development of the Dam.
Image 3. field trip - taking off
community. The forum was initially proposed as the concept sum¬marising what we were looking for. A place where par¬ticipation would take place among diverse actors and stakeholders. Our task was to be a neutral player who stimulates discussion by using our skills as spatial professionals and generating and re-interpreting dynamics. At this point, it was important not to impose ourselves and leave space and time for the community’ to inter¬act with it.
What is our goal? After the neighbourhood party “Droom den Dam” we an¬alysed the collected data. Some of our findings showed a lack of participation or general awareness of the community towards the ongoing process. There was as well a need to trans¬late the gathered data into practical information and a need to find new data as In parallel, a virtual platform was proposed taking well as to design more participation strategies. into account those people who preferred not to be physi¬cally present. The blog was put forward and fiAt this point we tried to structure all the initial questions nally de¬cided as the virtual tool to support the teaminto one broad goal and purpose, in order to be able work. Later on we would improve the physical forum. to define the role our studio would play in the fur¬ther In addition, we joined the City Lab project: an organiprocess and explore creative ways to channel and re- zation that searches for different linkages between fine the information collected so far. To achieve this we the city, di¬verse neighbourhoods and citizens (as it used the concept of a forum, having as ration¬ale the ap¬pears on its website). We used our general analysis need to contact the rest of the community or at least a of the neighbourhood and the information collected by broader part of it. the games in the ‘Droom den Dam’ party to design this joint project. The design should involve the concepts of urban gardening and sustainability.
FORUM VS. PLATFORM Does the place we want to create, have to be a physical space or a meeting point? This question guided the team’s initial discussion about how to approach the 43
3.2 Being in the field Playing with better ‘kaarten’ | cards Elements: Analysis , Design and Paticipation
In order to get a better understanding of the community, the stakeholders and the spatial features of the neighborhood the studio was divided into three groups: socio-spatial mapping, analysis of networks and spatial intervention. These three approaches guided the fieldwork and data production. Despite the decision to work in three separate groups we ensured that there would be continuous exchange between them. In that way we would have all hands-on experience with the different methods. Each group was also able to exploit and explore the capabilities of each of their members. However, as a matter of time, each group started to accumulate a lot of information. This information was very difficult to process for the other groups because of a lack of communication and different internal group dynamics What should I photograph? Should I capture every scene? What is the best way of observation? This type of questions faced the group of socio-spatial mapping. How can we attain a complete view of the social systems 44
operating in the Dam? What are the organizations in the A | MAPPING USE OF SPACE neighborhood?, Who can contact them and what should Does the built environment of Den Dam impose certain be asked? Those where some starting points of the work of behavioral patterns on certain social groups? the group of Network analysis. Their work was inspired by the presentation of Pim van gestel. This mapping exercise set out to graphically show the link between certain social and spatial attributes in a The spatial intervention group on the other hand re- neighborhood. This information can be used generate solved doubts such as: Are the people aware of their better plans costume designed to fit inhabitants’ cursurrounding? What are the best methods to attract the rent and dream life in Den Dam. attention of a community? Can a spatial intervention bring the community together, create awareness of the For example, concepts of direct Analysis of the use of space and facilitate a participatory process? space was executed through two methods, both stemming from the results of ‘Droom Den Dam’. 1. A mapping process documenting elements in people’s built environment in a purely spatial manner (cars, trees... as traffic mobility and green was continuously repeated), 2. Observing people’s interaction with their neighborhood in general through photos & interviews, (such as the public space analysis).
The team also wanted to document changes through time, but the time frame of the studio allowed for very limited variations, namely on weekend and still changes were negligible. The winter season had it’s own implications & limitations on certain topics such as use of parks and public space.
A. MAPPING USE OF SPACE Does the built environment of Den Dam impose certain behavioral patterns on certain social groups? This mapping exercise set out to graphically show the link between certain social and spatial attributes in a neighborhood. This information can be used generate better plans costume designed to fit inhabitants’ current and dream life in Den Dam. For example, concepts of direct Analysis of the use of space was executed through two methods, both stemming from the results of ‘Droom Den Dam’. 1. A mapping process documenting elements in people’s built environment in a purely spatial manner (cars, trees... as traffic mobility and green was continuously repeated), 2. Observing people’s interaction with their neighborhood in general through photos & interviews, (such as the public space analysis).
Use of space as a catalyst for discussion Spatial language - Meta-language? This being said, the process of mapping use of space was pretty much accumulative, picking up new topics and methods, and dropping others along the way, all guided however, by material suitable for spatial communication. Maps, sections and elevations generated by this group were architectural material indeed, placed in an infographic frame, a step further towards translation, but at all times, keeping the data as raw as possible seemed to be the best translation (example: image references).
A common link between the product of all three groups was that we all sought linkages. The social networks group were aiming at linkages between actors (organizations, individuals…etc), as where ‘Mapping use of A A A common link between the product of all three groups was that we all sought linkages. The social networks The struggle to go beyond the spatial language con- group were aiming at linkages between actors (organiveying spatial elements was most present in this group. zations, individuals…etc), as where ‘Mapping use of for spatial professionals are trained to use a certain vo- space’ would aim at linkages between people and their cabulary, that can be almost invisible to people unless environment. It was most challenging for the intervenexplicitly stated. For example, concepts of direction and tion group, with their attempts to create a crosscutting scale are evident for spatial professionals, but needed point for all the previous with time (an outlook towards to be highlighted, broken down to pieces, and empha- the future), this made them progress at a slower pace than other groups. sized.
B. SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS To attain a complete view of the social systems operating in the Dam, what role can fill the gap? Pollination This analysis was inspired by a lecture on SNA by Pim Van Gestel, which lead to starting off with theoretical readings, and a clear view of what the end result would be; a social network map at two levels: a formal network and an informal network. By overlaying the two networks and finding common nodes between the two, we could make a potential link between the formal and informal system. A general strategy of a snowball method was adopted, starting simultaneously with three actors as the starting points, what Ulrike Gretzel (2001) calls ego-centric alter nodes, whereby the selection of three diverse nodes facilitates greater coverage of available actors. Selection of the initial nodes was based on immediate and easy access to because of the short time frame. One of the biggest challenges faced with respect to the process of data collection was how to frame questions, with subjective viewpoints, in concrete comparable form. 45
Adopting a participatory observation methodology, founded on the acknowledgement that we are part of the overall study cohort, shaping and being shaped by this network analysis and mapping, meant more openness to subjective research by the studio team working in this group. The overlap between organization networks and individual networks also remains very intricate. To do vs. to know? Being positioned in a context of the ‘spatial studio’, the social process was constantly driven towards serving a spatial intervention (to do vs. to know) which undermined the focus on methodology a social process would conventionally aspire to develop. Action research The social network analysis group and the process they joined did take on to a great deal arranging the workshop – ‘Forum’. This brought in diverse actors intrigued by the interaction with a neutral body – the studio team. The spatial tone was very minimal in the final contribution to the toolkit, which focused more on people, organizations, their connections and activities.
46
C. ONGOING INTERVENTION Action Build/ design/ Participation
People at the workshop and eventually through the exhibit were very much impressed by the amount of effort and work put in producing the graphics presented.
We can safely state they did trigger questions, however, Can we enhance participation by means an spatial in- the full depth of each image was rarely digested, and participants would pick up a maximum of two linked tervention? ideas. Are spatial professionals used to producing impressive graphics? Objective From the ideas designed to City lab redifined the conLost in translation cept of participation into an spatial intervention. By Can people map their own space? means of spatial intervention, we wanted to improve not just a particular area on Den Dam but also the relaThe question of how to involve people in all stages of tionship between the community and their surroundthe mapping process was constantly reoccurring. The ings. studio wasn’t able to find an organization or individuals with the time and resources to take on the task, or Our work focused on planning a design strategy along participate.This may have been an extreme notion on the dock in the place of the Captain house. An abanparticipation, that inhabitants would carry out the prodoned place located in the intersection between the cess themselves; map their space, collect data, do interdock and one of the main streets in the neighbourhood. views…etc. Description Given that the city council is working in the development of on the area of the dock, and part of the community showed interest for the same area -as we could extract from “droom den dam” games-; we decided to emphasize our intervention along the dock.
t was clear after a while working on site, that the impressions, observations, data and interactions the spatial team had acquired working in the field could have never been fully transmitted between team members, not to mention between this specific team and other groups, and finally communicated to the inhabitants.
3.3. Reflection 1 A common link between the product of all three groups was that we all sought linkages. The social networks group were aiming at linkages between actors (organizations, individuals…etc), as where ‘Mapping use of space’ would aim at linkages between people and their environment. It was most challenging for the intervention group, with their attempts to create a crosscutting point for all the previous with time (an outlook towards the future), this made them progress at a slower pace The benefit of this was that we got in touch with more than other groups. people creating a “new network”. However the profile of people was always the same, Belgians between 30 and figure () 40 ‘gentrifiers’. As a method we used questionnaires asking about the dock and the captain house. The main result was that nobody actually knew the dock area. Then we started with a couple of pop up interventions to trigger awareness for the dock. At the same time we talked/ interviewed people of Dam Committee and we realized that we did not know the structure and function of the dan commite.
The figure illustrates the different methods each one of During the field work, we had to play different roles the groups used for data collection & analysis. The proapart from that of the architect; we had to put the gog- cess of the intervention group had most resemblance to gles of anthropologists, sociologists and even manag- the studio as a whole ers. This helped us to develop a more integral toolkit for the use of the community. This set of tools also reflects the lessons learnt from the whole process, ranging from the participatory design, the spatial design and the knowledge of the administrative structure. All this with the purpose of improving the quality of life of the community and increase the awareness of their own surroundings.
CANALIZING ALL CARDS - KAARTEN Mission statement -> Vision statement The workshop represented a moment where diverse actors come together – each with their own ‘card-kaart’, a first exercise in actualizing the forum that the studio aspired to start. Following up to this workshop a second reflection point was set up to: a.Evaluate the tools used (toolbox), as a catalyst for discussion b.Analyze dynamics between different actors c.Review observers’ meta-reflection on the whole process d.Receive academic and professional feedback Initially, the objective of the workshop was to come up with more specific ‘Research questions’. which through attempting to answer, can facilitate communal discussion and create an integrated bottom up vision for the neighborhood. Metamorphosis of roles Through the reflection on the workshop in several trajectories (Jury, observers, toolkit, dynamics) it became clear that the studio had to aspire to more than one mission in order to pursue the goals we had initially defined. 47
Firstly, Refining the toolkit, concentrating it to essentials and moving a step further in the translation process (which could mean simplifying the data, breaking it down to pieces, or linking it together). The second mission would be carefully and thoughtfully deciding on the next steps to take. Relying on the available data we had already collected and within the time constraint of the studio. In response to these constraints we defined the notion of Phasing out.
The for’u’m spatialized
With the output framed in two trajectories, community-based and academic, Within the perception of the studio as a process consisting of a series of ongoing interventions, it made sense to create a tangible intervention as a closing event. Which would link the different elements and outputs of the whole process together and catalyze ideas for future trajectories after the end of the studio. (learning from people’s response to the Academic feedback and expectations was carried out model). separately so as not to guide the process, and this separation helped highlight where both scopes overlap The academic follow up would in its turn be a critical and contradict. As a consequence we started identify- documentation of this intervention. Finally, we thought ing less with our previous roles. In the further process the best way to refine the toolkit would be through each person assumed a somewhat more neutral role as re-interpretation. The toolkit along with the response translator/ facilitator, and hence had to focus on events were mature enough to create possible linkages beand outputs rather than technical details. tween the three trajectories (Use of space, social networks, intervention). Suggestions and lessons learned were constantly supported by examples on actions and reactions, and the Attempts at revising the mission statement at this studio team could rotate between 2-3 different team point resulted in an expanded vision statement. This formations to complete this reflection and planning illustrates a moment when the studio team realized process. that within the time constraint, a defined concrete mission means carrying a rich toolkit, a set of very diverse exercises & activities, which can still be developed and expanded into a concrete mission, hence retreating to the rigid boundary generated by conventional design. 48
Figure () After the workshop, it was clear that the research questions we were generating were in actors and inhabitants’ head rather than ours.
3.4 Weaving Narratives INTEGRATING PERSPECTIVES Toolkit: Are those graphs related?
We intended to push the product of the exhibition a bit further from ‘what we did and how we did it’ (which was more or less the form the material in the toolbox Several options were considered to re-interpret the took) towards ‘what locals provided translated into toolkit. Each of these aimed to employ concepts that possible narratives with a spatial focus. Hence the were present throughout the entire studio thereby themes chosen could be traced back to the first exershowing how each concept evolved, and how it can be cise (Droom Den Dam), when the studio approached tackled joining different fields together. the neighborhood for the first time with blank sheets This step forward in the translation / re-interpretation for them to fill. The same themes ended up taking over of the toolkit takes on both a technical and a comthe discussion during the mid-review workshop. munal dimension: refining our ‘raw-data collected from inhabitants’ data by refitting each into a relevant WHO WORKS WITH WHOM? story line, and merging the early roles of studio teams, pushing expertise to work with each others’ data. It was essential that the process of planning the neighThemes were organized as analogies to provoke more borhood party would introduce new collaborative questions by inhabitants. Triggering questions and dynamics between neighborhood actors and spatial responses was still the main concern although within professionals. This was a main reason the event was another frame. It was essential that this step would be welcome in what we learned was a central organizaperceived as a starting point – A first step – towards tion – Elegast. The process also revealed new bodies – a comprehensive, continuing, open participation such as the boxing club, which provided a new examprocess, responding to the requests by all actors and ple of a reactive rather than active collaborative body, stakeholders to share the outputs, in a manner more which distinguishes two ways of intervening in a site. comprehendible by a public audience. It is worth mentioning that some driving actors The themes chosen for each narrative started leading brought up during the first phases gradually disapthe process at this point. peared, and were replaced by new ones. However, due to the fact neighborhood actors were not the ones carrying on the work, it was rather hard for them to claim
ownership of this newly introduced space, and take it on as their own (Poly-tunnel ownership) CONVERGENCE, A NEW THREAD INTO EXISTING SOCIAL DYNAMICS Reaching more diverse social groups was a goal the studio had in mind from day one, it was brought up in the second reflection point, proposing different ways of organizing the ‘Forum’. One way of doing that was joining forces with existing dynamics on site. We first thought of organizing a two-day event at two different neighborhood parties, along with moving the exhibit throughout different parts of the neighborhood, but because of the location constraint – one intervention had to be at the dock – and the advantage of presenting the exhibit in a neutral environment, we decided to split it in only two schemes, joining one party, and a follow up event of our own. This phase also revealed new skills and expertise within the studio team; a similar impact can be traced in all practical on-site interventions throughout the process, where a certain project on site renders titles and expertise secondary to production.
49
Subtitle 3.5 Critical3.0 Reflection subtitle text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text
Figure () The above figure illustrates how the process of the studio falls within a more general frame of social, spatial, chronologinal and intervention dynamics. The studio represents one of the loops, through which analysis and design are perceived as catalysts for better participation in each step. A number of accumulative processes can, with time, generate spacial interventions based on diversie actors’ participation. The process itself is seen as the generator and mediator for ‘learning loops’, from which each actor slowly blends into a coherent whole. The maturity and diversity of such processes are essential for enrihing dialogue, and gaining momentum.
50
Meta-reflection
4
4.0 Introduction Three months is not a lot of time when working with the spatial and social realm. In retrospect, it seems astonishing that so much was accomplished in such a limited timeframe. A number of methodologies were explored, a significant amount of data was gathered, and several interventions took place. It has been a three month explosion of activity. And that is why this section is of the utmost importance, to provide a critical reflection over this period, on the ways in which we work, the concepts that dominated our discourse, the actions we took, the processes of change and ultimately, questions about the role of our identity as spatial professionals. Part 1 takes the reader on a journey through different notions of ‘participation’ that materialised throughout the studio, how these notions have evolved throughout the studio process and questions some of the underlying assumptions of ‘the participatory’. Part 2 and 3 focus on processes, how the studio and the Dam waere shaped by different processes; part 2 focusing on the role of action in determining the studio’s methodologies; part 3 discusses processes of change relating to communication, relationality and methodologies. Finally, part 4 investigates the role of the spatial professional in conducting work that crosses disciplinary boundaries and entails shifting disciplinary logics.
54
4.1 Grappling with Participation Knowledge and Practice This chapter is based on interviews conducted with all of the studio members and are co-written by 4 students. These reflections do not shy away from the self-critical, on the contrary, it is through this constructive process of critical examination where the nuances emerge and learning takes place.
The work of the Studio in the Dam provided an insight into the reality of participation and this part reflects our exploration of the concept within this reality. The workings of establishing bottom-up processes by providing a learning experience relevant to the dam context as well as sharing in these processes through inclusive coenquiry and production is critically reflected upon. The strategic planning studio laid heavy focus on participation, a term that still remains a notion fraught with complications, both in its definitional contours and putting it into action. This chapter presents some of these challenges, critically reflecting on the experiences of the studio participation in the Dam. Specific focus is given to the different options of participation and its ingredients and how these were translated to actions undergoing evolution throughout the studio processes. The reflections reveal a process of how the strategic planning studio experienced participation perhaps a metamorphosis and how this term evolved with time. A. JOINING THE PARTICIPATORY PARTY Instigated by the new masterplan development for the neighbourhood, a few concerned members of the Dam neighbourhood came together to form a committee to mobilize its residents and unify its voice in order to be heard by the city and be part of the planning processes
that affect their neighbourhood. The aim here was not to oppose the city plans but to fashion a platform where the community can have a say, raise their concerns, issues and request to be involved in the preparation of the master plan. The studio joined in the process only months after the Dam Comite’s inception, in fact, at its first big event—the Droom den Dam party. The studio team thus entered an upcoming and ongoing process.
on trying out different methods, allowing cycles of practice and reflection to guide our understandings. During the end of studio reflective exercise, we interviewed the participants of the studio to understand what ideas of participation they had before the studio and how their understanding of the term changed through the studio.
tors in the Dam, we had the ambition of detecting the blind spots, the people who fell in the gaps of the network, although, considering the time, this was a very challenging goal. However, we did manage to include a comprehensive number of organizations with varied constituencies.
“Inhabitant involvement in processes of decision making for this studio, spatial decisions. Equal involvement, an Although the studio was brought into the process by actual say in the decision making, equal weighed as to the the Dam Comite and NDVR, The position of the studio decisions of the city.” was supposed to be independent. In order to further situate the context of our entry into the participation “Related to be involved in the process of your neighbourtrajectory in the Dam, it’s important to note that the hood changing. The right to give your opinion. studio came into the process at a time when the city To take responsibility of change, also getting power in development plans for the neighbourhood had stalled. changing something, being involved in decision making We entered a context where raising awareness and sup- processes.” port was a key objective of our two supporting/ collaborating organisations. Based on these interviews and in the light of our studio experience, we were able to form a view of how we, as a i. Our Common Definition: studio understood the concept of participation, its key The Ingredients of Participation ingredients and how these played out in the context of the Dam. These ingredients are: Participation is a broad term to definitionally unpack. To better understand its meaning in the context of the Inclusivity- One of the main aims we started the stuDam studio, we tried to distil the ingredients of partici- dio with was to create an inclusive process that would pation. As mainly practitioners, we decided not to dive have a representation of the dam’s diverse peoples. into the theory behind participation, instead focusing While there was already a visible network of social ac-
Collective Action- working together to achieve common goals, provides an important form of action and collective learning. We attempted this with the creation of the Polytunnel, however, failed to initiate deeper levels of participation. Information- is crucial in a participatory process; information should be equitably available to all participants. Likewise, transparency and communication of values and intentions is critical. The Studio worked diligently in communicating its aims and justifications but lacked a strategy of how to do this clearly to avoid misconceptions and to access out to hard-to-reach groups. Time has constantly loomed over our process in the Dam. Being on a short leash has enabled us to be extremely creative and at the same time has robbed us of the luxury of reflecting on our actions or of verifying them through repetitions. The Studio has been extremely enthusiastic and ambitious, which in terms of time was then a bit unrealistic. Our participation was short term (3months), an intermediate phase which 55
fits into the ongoing long term participation process in the Dam. The studio participation and its action were oriented to future goals and continuity of the forum as a platform for future participation. While our interventions may not have produced the results we expected, the actions of the Studio could potentially be the exploration of new methods that could be used in the participatory process as an alternative to the traditional ones.
and small processes of the studio’s work in the Dam, the more one finds elements of participation. In fact, if one was to use the above list of key ingredients of participation, a list that is broad and generous, it would seem that very little is not participative. This begs to question, is participation brokered on a number of separate ingredients or the interplays, values, and power dynamics between them?
Ownership- or a a sense of belonging, creates a motivation for participation among the people of the neighbourhood. Also allowing the people to take responsibility for their neighbourhood generates sustenance of participation. It was difficult to measure the extent to which local organisations and individuals have taken up positions of responsibility over the work that was conducted, particularly the Polytunnel.
B. WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUT PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROCESS? As a relational process, it is clear that participation requires time; time to listen and time to speak. What is i. A Time to Start/ A Time to End? not so obvious is the time that is required to establish dynamics that facilitate participation, such as mutual The three month studio provided a time and space understanding, common language, and relationships. where we explored different ideas and assumptions Indeed, time may be of the essence with urban planthat we had about ideas and practices of spatial plan- ning, but time is the essence with participatory proning—participation being the hot topic. From the ini- cesses. tial week a key question was raised that has remained with the studio, acting as a baseline, a reminder of how The studio has learned first hand the degree to which we had once thought; the question was, “when does participation requires ample time to achieve outcomes. participation end?” Three months enables exploration and nascent understandings of dynamics and actors. Over this time The flexible nature of the studio allowed us to explore period, much was accomplished, including a strengththis question through conducting research, design and ening of the participatory process in the Dam, as eviactivities. The answer came quickly, participation has dent in the mid-review workshop. However, our role in no end. It continues, transformed, changing in shape this has been limited; we have much to thank the Dam throughout the process. There seems to be no end in Commite and NDVR for their earlier initiatives. Despite
ii. Is Everything Participatory? The studio project was action packed from beginning to end. This included a number of different activities that can be placed under the rubric of participation. This ranges from defining the studio’s collective skills and assets, innovative game-like research methods, workshops where participants create their own proposals and an exhibition that merges local visions with those of the studio. The more one reflects on the big 56
sight for ‘participation’. Nevertheless, questions still remain regarding the role of non-participatory action, for example, is there a role for the isolated designerly way of acting, within the broader social process? Is there complimentarity and synthesis between methods that have oppositional positions on participation, such as traditional design and strategic spatial planning? ii. Participation needs Time
our best efforts, we have only scratched the surface in materialising a meaningful participatory process. In reflecting, many of the students highlighted these time limitations as a notable barrier to achieving our objectives. If the 3 months was 3 years or 30 years, not only the outcome but the process itself, the types of relationships forged from the onset, and the values given to the work would have been vastly different. This does beg the question, what is the value in short-term participatory action, what is its role within the larger process and does it facilitate this process in the long-term or lead to just-another-intervention resulting in greater apathy and fatigue?
“The people of the Dam are resisting Participation, they’re either fed up or just too tired of it. New people living there are also resistant to participation. They already have main access to services, they don’t need much else.” “We experienced a hard participation process. Sometimes we were facing people that were fatigued, they didn’t want to participate. It’s not inclusive as I expected.” With limited local resources and first-hand knowledge, the studio relied heavily on local actors for a number of different resources, be it knowledge, contacts, space, or tools. As relationships were established over time, it became easier to ask for these things—a certain giveand-take rapport was substantiated. With time, we became increasingly integrated within the neighbourhood, a level of participation in the everyday was occurring. When push came to shove, at the moment of the exhibition, the studio was surprised by the low turnout. A number of individuals that had played roles in our research and action failed to attend. Without jumping to conclusions as to why, it does highlight an issue that many in the studio began to sense—participatory fatigue.
should be spent focusing on inclusivity of all stakeholder groups? Looking at the relationships established in the Dam, it is easy to see a variety of different actors involved—from local blue collar workers to young professionals, Sub-Saharan African, North African, and Flemish. Nevertheless, upon closer inspection, some groups, such as the African charismatic Christian community remained absent, while others, like the North African community, remained under represented. The workshop, viewed as the crowning moment of participatory action demonstrated the extent to which we failed in reaching out to different inhabitant groups— all local participants were white ethnic Belgians. Does this reveal a bias in our processes, the location and format of the workshop, or the networks through which we worked? Or does it reflect a broader theme about the culture and practice of this brand of participation, one that is emerging from a western discourse?
The participatory action that was being undertaken in the Dam was studio-led, not co-led by the inhabitants. We came from a positioning of privilege, observing and reflecting from a distance and conducting weekly onsite zoom-ins. We were not living the daily reality of the neighbourhood co-experiencing it with its inhabitIs participation for everyone? Do we want everyone to ants. In other words, we were not participating in the participate or are there some groups that it’s easier to daily life of the Dammers. Natural informal discussions avoid? Moreover, how much of the participatory effort were the exception. Instead of piggybacking on exist57
ing day-to-day participatory processes in the community, the studio chose separate initiatives that were not necessarily associated with the ‘everyday’. While this extra-ordinary approach does have its benefits, we lost some of the natural flows and occurrences through our staged and more formal approach. As enthusiastic as the studio was about the Dam, we were outsiders; outsiders that were asking for their time and energy. Despite the credibility that was gained through strategic partnerships with the Dam Commite and NDVR, we failed to establish wider buy-in and ownership. An example of this is the ownership of the Polytunnel, which remains slightly contested—originally envisioned to be the responsibility of four different actors/organisations, it remains unclear who, besides NDVR, are willing to take up this role. Even with the limits of time, with a different approach, one that began in close collaboration, would there have been a) a different output than the polytunnel, b) a broader inclusivity, and c) a different degree of ownership? iii. A Cornucopia of Methods: Selecting what Works Identifying the ‘how’ remains contested when designing participatory processes. At any one point in our process, a dozen or more different approaches of what to do could be seen as equally valid, selecting one be58
came a reflective process of learning by trial and error. But the ‘how’ is closely linked to ‘for whom?’ and the sequencing of the process. While there may be no one particular method for participation techniques, some, we came to understand, are time or context specific. The construction of the polytunnel, what was hoped to be a joint venture was carried out too soon within the process and resulted in limited assistance from Dammers. Some participatory data gathering tools like the ‘Visions of the Dam’ interactive posters placed throughout the Dam failed to gather a response. Others, such as the series of interactive data collection at Droom den Dam were successful. The studio did not come to a consensus on a general guideline as to what method works when/where. Be that as it may, trial and error inculcated an increased caution and reflection amongst the students when selecting methods. C. STUDIO AND PARTICIPATION
To what extent can our activities in the Dam be termed as a participatory process?: “Yes, but I think it was too aggressive. In the way that we were constantly bothering people, asking, and expecting things that they would do for us. Time also comes in; we wanted to do a lot so we had to push it. If we had more time we could involve people better, and clarify expectations.” “Not to a great extent. I would have wanted more people to be involved doing the activities with us. It was pretty much hard to have them on board and we had resource and time constraints. I would have wanted people to be doing the mapping themselves, so that the idea and knowledge stays in their head and is not in my head that needs to be transferred to other people. If inhabitants are doing the job, this is at the core of the participatory process, raising awareness of the built environment.”
These two quotations best convey the rifts that exist between our experiences of participation and our nori. Was that Really Participatory? mative ideals of it. Others in the studio expressed that participation is an ideal, something to be sought after, This section explores our critical reflections of partici- never quite reachable but always worth striving for. pation in light of our own definitions, outlined above, In this sense, participation straddles action and ideal, of participation and the work carried out in the studio. often balancing between hope and disappointment. But should it be an ideal? Does this make too much of
something that could otherwise be part-and-parcel of the everyday, a living breathing participation? These lofty ideals and expectations resulted in very critical reflections of our work. The difficulties in establishing participatory processes had not been anticipated. The studio members highlighted the lack of inclusivity of different social groups, attendance to our final event and a lack of concrete interest in taking responsibility for the Polytunnel as key shortcomings of our work. Conversely, the Droon den Dam, creating Social Network Analysis, and the Mid-review workshop were perceived as positive and beneficial participatory moments. Taking these two sets of opinions, it is possible to grasp the conflicted relationship the studio had with notions of participation, at some points we were able to promote participatory processes while at others, we floundered.
much of this. Joining an existing slipstream of participation conducted by Dam Commite and NDVR, helps ensure that the work that was undertaken will be carried on, adopted and appropriated as necessary. The methods employed by the studio hopefully brought awareness to members of the community and local organisations. Participative, interactive and open methods for data collection, decision making and action are possible and accessible to all. If a group of students can quickly throw these together in an improvised and tailored manner, it opens up the awareness that members of the community can do so as well. We hope that our work has inspired Dammers to act, explore new methodologies and to build upon the work that the studio carried out.
kinds of actors through the forums we created resulting into strengthening of existing networks and formation of new relationships. Participation, to be truly meaningful, has to go beyond a project, to be continuous and sustained and a way of life.
CONCLUSION
D. PARTICIPATION FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF Participation in the context of the Dam studio provided THE DAM. an opportune environment for spatial professionals to learn a different way of going about their practice. The As significant social and spatial changes continue to act of involving and engaging different actors in diashape the Dam, participatory processes within local in- logues throughout the studio processes was mirrored terest groups will play a consequential role in democ- as participation. The transition of our understanding ratising new developments. The role of participation of the term from its broad meaning to specificity of its in shaping the lives and locale of Dammers is monu- ingredients helped shape the clarity of participation as mental. The shape that this participation will take, it’s the studio progressed. The emerging experiences show level of inclusion and the methods used will determine how participation created dialogue among different 59
4.2 Analysing the Process of Action Three months of intensive work bore the fruit of a number of unique actions and methodologies, emerging from a string of factors and influences. This section seeks to discuss from whence these practices materialised and to reflect on the values that these embodied. Analysing these practices, how they work together or separately, how they were influenced or influence, and their relationship to theoretical positionings, offers insight into the logic behind the studio’s trajectory. A ACTION ORIENTED OR ACTION BIASED? From the onset the studio’s work was focused on action. The initial stages of the studio required a careful negotiation of knowledge production through action and design. The studio worked within an already existing process, joining forces with existing actors (Dam Commite and NDVR). As such, the planning and scheduling of activities was entirely subject to a pre existing calendar, making it a key factor which could not be controlled, but deeply impacted, our work. We were thrust into action at a significant moment for the Dam before being able to settle-in within its context and realities, and without the necessary time to establish general practices of the studio and rules of engagement.
tions and innovative data collective methodologies. Until this point, instructions had focused mainly on assets/skills of individuals in the studio and discussions on the role of the spatial professional. This action approach continued in the following days, culminating in the development of a design proposal for the Dam for the CityLab project, whereby concrete designs were discussed, despite the limited first-hand knowledge. These initial activities set a precedent of action within the studio, moving from a place of introspection to design proposals within less than two weeks. Taking time for reflection and introspection on the context and the data collected from the initial Droom the Dam event came weeks after these first two action-oriented exercises. i. Unintentional hierarchies? The next stage in the process attempted an iterative step back, a move into three separate streams; two of research: spatial and social; and a third, more actionoriented theme, dedicated to researching the logic and value of an intervention and how it could contribute to the Dam. The social and spatial research was designed
and justified to contribute to this possible intervention. The Droom the Dam data collection exercise plunged This direct action-oriented logic continued to the students into the context, forcing quick adapta- play an important role in the research agenda. 60
The notion of a specific type of action, one rooted in space to trigger a social process, remained present throughout the data collection and research stage for the spatial and social researchers. B. ACTION REFLECTION CONTINUUM: PRAXIS, VISIONS AND MISSIONS i. Evolving Definitions or Lost in Translation? “Not another afternoon of designing a mission statement?” Action did not stand on its own. Throughout the process a particular emphasis was placed on individual and collective reflection, taking shape in different forms including personal journaling and the studio’s blog. Nevertheless, much of the studio’s reflection on what we were doing and why, was elaborated and focused upon in the mission statement, which was the pin-cushion for ideas and at times frustrations. The mission statement was set as an open document that was to direct our long term vision and guide our short term action. Throughout the action process, we returned to the mission statement to alter and adapt it to new realities and ideas. The mission statement was intended to be a centrifuge, separating the multitude
of ideas into clear parts and clarifying the boundaries between objectives. This process, although often perceived as a waste of time, requiring many hours of dialogue to clarify language and ideas had the potential to play an important step in reframing and re-thinking the project. The redefinition of the mission statement became a time to re-envision the project, our role in the Dam, and our hopes and desires.
to articulate a clear common mission, qualifying it as their ‘own’ interpretation of what was discussed and not the commonly created version. Varieties in interpretation range from focusing on the new masterplan, starting participatory processes, addressing local problems, strengthening community dynamics, raising awareness, and promoting local
interests. Are mission statements given too much credence? Is the subtle sub-text that arises around the mission statement, that which is created informally through Despite the emphasis placed on the open and flexible mission statement, the process struggled to dialogue and action, underestimated, and should it be embed clarity as to what exactly our mission was. taken more into account?
The mission statement lacked specificities and lucidity, reflecting our own uncertainty as to what we wanted to accomplish, how and why. Repetitive attempts at clarifying definitions resulted in more specific terminology but it remained broad in theme. Even at its most specific, the language failed to structure the nuanced sub-text that had been adopted over time and which underpinned the action. Was this the result of communication breakdown, lack of ownership of the mission statement or a disconnect between our mission and the realities of what is possible in the context? Students throughout the 3 months re-interpreted the mission statement according to a number of factors, not least of these being the specific works they were involved in. At the end of the studio, there remained a disparate set of ideas as to the mission of the studio in general, most struggling
Despite shortcomings in the creation of a unified mission statement amongst the students, the continuous redefinition of the mission statement became in many ways, the studio’s own forum. A time (and place) to discuss and debate what we are doing, how and why. This does prompt the question, how different would the process have been if a coherent and adapted mission statement was instituted? ii. Finding ourselves in the Mid-Review Workshop “The most valuable action during the studio was the workshop, we created a productive moment between different actors. Even when we leave it will continue. Points of view and interests were shared.” 61
The three separate threads of research came together in the mid-review workshop, unified through a single compilation of tools that were used interspersed throughout the process. Students were able to observe the synergies and overlaps of content between the research threads and witness the reactions by the participants. It unified our efforts and what had previously been lost in translation appeared to be made clear and comprehensible. It was a high-point in the studio, many of the students pin-pointed it as the most valuable action that was conducted. It was a cumulative event that helped make sense of the work we had been doing. C. A PARTICIPATORY TUNNEL BECOMING INCREASINGLY NARROW i. Losing ourselves in our disciplines
an output established itself. An implicit understanding that the research alone was not sufficient as output for the studio, prompted a desire to produce the spatial forum that had loomed large during discussions of the mission statement. Looking back, not everyone in the studio agrees that his/her act of spatial transformation was the logical output of our work. There is arguably a disconnect between the research conducted and the creation of the exhibit, in its form and function. While the panels with the four narratives provide a meaningful translation of the research, it is uncertain if other forms of communication would not have been more consistent with the process thus far. Moreover, the lasting impact of the panels was never discussed, nor were the Dam Commite or NDVR consulted on whether they would be interested in using an exhibit-like artefact after our departure.
Conversely, others argue that as spatial professionals, we are expected to produce spatially significant work “We were ambitiously non-spatial at the beginning but we that can synthesise and interpret the realities (past and retreated back near the end….we retreated back to our present) of a neighbourhood. Much of this debate will spatial backgrounds.” become clear in time. With a significant amount of research conducted and new information arising from the workshop, there remained much to reflect on and digest. With 4 weeks before the end of the studio, a certain pressure to create 62
create and to have a spatial impact. They argue that this shift to production from research skipped several steps in the participatory process, rendering the output less meaningful and without the co-production and ownership that was originally envisioned. Others however, point out that this follows closely with our mission statement for a physical forum and that it provided a key source of awareness raising of the new possibilities in the Dam. Nevertheless, the question remains, what shape would the output have taken, if not spatial, and would it have been a more productive input to the ongoing processes in the Dam? ii. Narrowing the Participatory Vision The methods used throughout the studio evolved over time through discussion and practice. Open and flexible data collection methods in Droom den Dam shared an open and flexible character to the tools that were created and used at the workshop to initiate discussion and debate. These tools aimed at participation and were intentionally open, in order to involve the participant in actively engaging with the tool, appropriating it for themselves.
Was the creation of the Polytunnel necessary? Did it contribute to the process that the studio was hoping to The content in the exhibit was equally closed, polachieve? Some within the studio view the Polytunnel ished storylines behind plexiglass, as if in a gallery, as the physical manifestation of the architect’s desire to were shown to inhabitants, with little chance to shape
those stories. Video interviews were used to gather their responses but the finalised and finished format of the exhibition established a more closed and finalised dynamic of the research. The focus on processes was slowly being replaced by tangible outputs. Nevertheless, this does not imply that this is the sole trajectory for the project, there are ample opportunities to use this exhibition as a platform for diving back into participative practices. While there is sufficient self-criticism amongst studio members on the closed and finished nature of the exhibition, perhaps, a new perspective on participatory practices needs to include cycles that include a variety of formats, ranging from the radically open to those, like the polytunnel exhibit, which emphasise a sense of conclusion.
sentiment shifted, perhaps due to receiving less support than we had originally anticipated.
iii. The Struggle against Time
Methodological approach has always been the difference between spatial and social professionals. Working in interdisciplinary teams requires an understanding of the different logics based on which they can feed off the strengths of each other. Our actions are an exploration of such methodologies and techniques of a process of interdisciplinary efforts, and such explorations are crucial to developing an inclusive and sustainable process of participation that use the best of all disciplines.
“It’s not a real process about wanting to participate when you start as an outsider and then just leave. Time is important. “ Working within the boundaries of time exerted pressure on the process. When we commenced our work in the Dam at the Droom den Dam party, it felt as if we
The uncertainty of how our work would be continued after our short intervention was perhaps part of the driving force that led to the creation of more finalised outputs, such as the polytunnel and the exhibit’s four narratives. The work we have done in no way ends with the conclusion of this studio. New processes have emerged along with ideas and relationships. Nevertheless, the challenges of the work being continued-on by actors in the Dam raises questions about the methods used and their corresponding outputs. CONCLUSION
were joining an on-going process, supported by the Dam Commite and NDVR. We were a blip on the timeline of change in the Dam. As the work continued, this 63
4.3 Process of change / changes of process? What instigates change? This question sits at the core of the studio’s work. The studio’s objectives and vision reacted to changes, changes within the studio, such as learning processes, and changes externally, such as with the socio-spatial composition of the Dam neighbourhood. Changes and their effects, in such scenarios are often small, difficult to spot, and only become clear much later in the process. Now, in this state of reflection, this section seeks to discuss some of the changes that occurred, pinpointing some of the agents of change within this ‘process of change’ and what that has come to mean for the studio and Dam. A. CHANGE IN THE STUDIO: INTERNAL EVOLUTIONS The internal changes that occurred within the Studio can be viewed as not only a process of change but rather a number of changes in processes and approach. It was a time of exploring and learning, complimented by a pedagogical structure that was both open and flexible to a variety of approaches. As we learned we adapted, changing our own learning process, using new tools and means of evaluating our work, adopting novel techniques, and re-visioning our mission statement. In this way, the studio can be seen not as only a single process of change but as many changes in process.
64
i.Grappling with Knowledge and Action: Learning
The studio aimed to marry ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’, unified through methodological constructions that justify why we do what we do. From the get-go, the studio subverted many of our previous understandings of this union, challenging the hierarchy between the two as well as the sequencing. Knowlegde and action both constantly sought to recalibrate each other in a constant dialectical relationship. From the beginning, as the action chapter (above) illustrates, action came to dominate the methodological content process—it shaped much of the theory and reflection. This action-oriented approach and mindset helped consolidate our inputs, providing moments of exploration. Through the praxis and the local embededness, we learned valuable elements—sometimes theoretical and other times practical. It was often a process of learning through doing. This action-oriented approach evolved quickly, challenging other logics and taking on a form of its own— impacting our thinking. The learning process followed this undulation between reflection and action; keeping dialogue and discussion rooted to the concrete and temporal.
The learning process began with the methodological formation for the event of Droom den Dam, which entailed the rushed exercise of creating data collection tools. This set a precedent in working with, and inventing tailor-fit methodologies, what followed in the next months remained explorative, keeping the character of the initial methodological formation.
about redefining traditional boundaries of methodology. During the reflecting period, none of the other studio members particularly felt this was a problem or that it negatively affected the outcome of the project. It raises questions about the value of methodological orthodoxy vs. improvisation and adaptation. Regardless of the chosen method, the studio’s process of trial and error resulted in an intense internal learning proThe studio offered a laboratory for methodological cess, punctuated by perpetual testing of methodoloexploration. The students were able to engage with gies through action based research and/ or activities. methods, commonly those outside of their own discipline, such as social network mapping—requiring the ii. Two is Company but Three is a Crowd: Communiadoption of new methodological rationalities. Like- cation wise, developing and justifying the tools we used in general, and in particular during the mid-review work- The diversity of students, ranging from 5 continents shop, is case and point to the freedom that the students and 3 academic disciplines entailed a high degree of had in forming their own approaches to ‘knowing and difference—opinions, ideas, and practices. Developdoing’. While ‘jumping’ from the workshop to an exhibit ing a culture of open dialogue remained a challenge and polytunnel is evidence enough to demonstrate the throughout the process. Establishing clear guidelines openness and flexibility to try out new methodologies. for communication, whether it be in plenary or in planning, failed to take shape. Nevertheless, a bi-product of this flexibility and meth- Dialogue, from early on, was fraught with difficulties. odological adventurism is a lack of a cohesive and con- These dynamics shaped the form of that the methods sistent approach, sometimes hindering the group’s total took. While it was never going to be easy to find conefforts. Some in the group, particularly the sociologist, sensus among a group of such diversity, the lack of fretted about the lack of methodological rigour, em- constructive dialogue broke down the inclusive nature phasising the need for further reflection. However, for that was intended with the studio. With the pressure the adventurous group of spatial professionals, it was of time, those who were not in agreement acquiesced 65
to the more dominant or popular discourses. Ultimately this led to new working cultures, whereby plenary discussion focused on identifying themes for groups, which would then proceed to identify particular methods independently. These groups, despite sharing overlapping themes and a common objective, often worked semi-independently from the whole. Although at the time this was a more efficient measure, especially in avoiding significant timeframes of discussion, it resulted in a splintering of the unified process of the studio. Details and stories were not always shared, ideas and recommendations were sometimes lost between groups, which in turn failed to transfer over and potentially inspire and shape the actions of the other groups. This internal fragmentation diluted some of the energy and potential of innovation of the studio and in the end decreased the effectiveness of its actions. B. CHANGE IN THE DAM Unlike the changes of process that occurred in the studio, the Dam is undergoing a long process of change, recently characterised by significant demographic shifts and envisioned mega-projects in and around its locale. This section reflects on what impact the studio may have had, even in the humblest of forms, in shaping and contributing to the process of change. 66
i. The Relationship with the Dam/ Dammers
als to reflect on the different organisations in the Dam; individuals were asked about their knowledge of, and relationship with, over 50 different ‘influential’ individuals and organisations. This process was a time for reflection on who does what in the Dam and the interviewee’s relationship to them. It remains to be seen the extent to which these relationships will grow but several new connections were forged and new gaps between organisations of similar activities were highlighted and interest was shown in new synergies between actors. The studio, with its time constraints was not able exploit these opportunities through nurturing joint initiatives and projects.
Central to all that was carried out in the Dam was the creation of relationships, both between us, as a studio, and Dammers, but more importantly the relationships between the dammers themselves, that arose from the activities that we undertook. Relationships, it was felt, are important and sustainable means, providing the necessary foundation for community action. Be that as it may, the process of building relationships requires trust and time; we lacked time but we were able to work with the element of trust; thanks to our relationships to NDVR, Elegast and the Dam Committee, we were able to establish a modicum of trust from early on in the proLooking back at the bounty of information that was cess. gathered throughout the three months highlights the Ii. Data Collection as Speed Dating: New relation- number of relationships that were forged through this ships process. With a participatory action research method, the studio reached a vast number of inhabitants, a Despite being spatially focused, our intentions were number of whom had not been involved in any of dissocially stimulated—the desire for the inhabitants to cussions on the neighbourhood before. shape their spaces. With research and outputs such as the social network analysis, we aimed to establish new The extent of exposure to different groups within the connections and forge stronger ties between existing Dam is questionable, what is not, is the exposure that ones. In addition we aimed to come up with methods, the studio had to a large number of Dammers—particwhich aim to combine social and spatial knowledge. ularly taking into account the short timeframe. While the output provides a number of uses, the data collection process itself provided a time for individu-
iii. Activities and Assets: Shaping Relationships Relations between studio members and Dammers evolved and changed shape throughout the process along with the methods that we were using and the individuals that we were working with. For example, at times, certain organisations or individuals were sought after for collaboration not solely because of their potential in the process but due to the fact that they spoke English well. Moreover, as we saw the potentials for our own collaboration in different organizations and individuals, we were more likely to include them—they were, cynical as it sounds, easier and more strategic to include within the process. This may have resulted in some actors with significant assets being left out. From the perspective of the Dammer, interest picked up with the realization that the studio can be of use to their own interests. Once the realisation of the studio’s skills and assets were made apparent, interest picked up; for example, hesitation gave way to requests of direct collaboration such as summer internships and architectural assistance. As skills, assets, connections, and intentions became clearer, it lent credibility to the studio, as a consequence, relationships opened up in different ways for both the studio and the Dammers.
Certain barriers existed throughout the process, such as language and culture. While we were able to use other languages such as Arabic and French to reach sub-groups in the Dam, the scarcity of Dutch speakers shaped the way relationships were forged and with whom they were forged. Moreover, a more intimate knowledge of the cultural nuances would have enabled a clearer and easier planning process and engagement. iv. Recognised in the Dam It was not uncommon to pass through the area and recognise friendly faces. Likewise, we became known throughout the neighbourhood simply by our presence—11 students, 7 non Belgians, with a deep interest in the everyday happenings and setting of their neighbourhood. Along with the presence, we hope we also inspired a spirit of change and possibility. From the start there was a concern about getting peoples’ hopes up through the potential of real change not bearing fruit. Nevertheless, we feel that if anything, the relationships we fostered between ourselves and the community were ones of support and encouragement, with the intention of providing some examples for different forms of involvement in the spaces where they live.
67
C. OUTPUTS WITH AN OUTCOME?
into the thought process or actions of those who have been exposed to them.
i. More than just a box of tools? “A very rewarding moment came at Het Vaderhuis, a small
How much change will the ‘toolbox’ bring about local VZW, where the director showed me a copy of our soin the Dam? It is a rhetorical question at best; these cial network map and spatial analysis maps, which was changes will be hard to attribute and will take time to become clear. Nevertheless, the short-term impacts were made clear at the mid-review workshop, whereby these tools sparked meaningful dialogue and discussion. It is un-certain how these will be used in the future, although there has been a remarkable amount of interest shown by the City of Antwerp and other spatial professionals and by smaller organisations and individuals.
covered in her own notes and comments. She displayed it to me and then began to explain the position of her VZW in the social network, why it was in that specific position and how she would like to increase her organisation’s connections. “
When using a more general interpretation of ‘toolbox’, the combination of methods that we used, adapted, studied and initiated during the studio, one begins to see the degree of useful knowledge and skills that were Potentials abound if the momentum is continued. In created—a wealth of insight into a transdisciplinary any case, there are many moments where it may feed engagement. This compendium of learning and action has the potential for inspiration and adaptation by many others, regardless of their backgrounds. ii. Leaving a Stepping Stone: Polytunnel Recurring Internal discussions early on in the studio highlighted the desire for a physical input in the Dam. The notion of a forum, not only in metaphor but also rooted in space, was a popular idea throughout the process. It was envisioned as the grand finale of the 68
work conducted, the completion of the research, something real and ‘lasting’. The forum, this lateralization of the mission statement was envisioned as a neutral space for dialogue and for other community uses, located strategically in an area that the studio wanted to ‘activate’. In retrospect, this desire for the physical appears out of place, as does the need for a finale, or any type of ‘completion’ to the research. The work that was conducted was valuable in and of itself, as illustrated in the chapters above. Is this desire for a sense of completion derived from a lack of understanding of how others will carry on in the research and work that the studio undertook? Or is it, perhaps, the desire to continue to challenge theory through practice? Regardless, the polytunnel is a physical reminder to Dammers of the work that was done and, if all goes as planned, it will be taken up by different users, appropriated, and inducted into the community. Whether it will be the neutral forum as intended is anyone’s guess. The journey of the polytunnel is one worth following. iii. Precedents and Inertia The methodologies and learning processes that were employed in the Dam have set in motion a momentum, both in the Dam and possibly in the city of Antwerp, that will hopefully be carried on by others, adapting it to their own abilities and interests. The studio has built
on many other interventions in the past, occurring around the globe. As we hand our work over, we hope that we have contributed to this pyramid of knowledge. The actions undertaken, we dare to hope, will instigate others in the Dam, carrying out their own projects and organising events directed at reshaping their community and its context. As a three month project, we have been bound in a tight timeframe. Fortunately, we have worked with and through local organisations such as NDVR and the Dam Commite, which now hold a part of the responsibility to sustain the inertia and momentum that has been stirred-up through the research and action undertaken in the Dam.
Other changes lie imperceptible, to emerge at unexpected times and places. Be it in the studio or in the Dam, it is clear that much has changed since we set off on a three-month process to better understand ourselves and the processes of spatial planning and the realities of social engagement. Although our chapter in this broader process of change is over, the work that we did will continue on.
CONCLUSION The above section outlines some of the changes in process both within the Studio as we came to terms with different methods, adapting and changing in the process; and within the Dam and Antwerp, whereby we were part of a larger process attempting to contribute with the skills and assets we have in the short period of time available. Humble as our intervention may seem, a number of potential changes can be identified, ranging from awareness, inspiration, new relations, spatial re-readings, and even a physical change in the neighbourhood. 69
4.4 Striking a Participatory Pose: The Positioning of the Spatial Professional From the moment we sat down as a Studio for the first time, we tried to understand the role of that we can play in the Dam. It has been a continuous reflection throughout our involvement, that all of us made not just as a Studio, but on a personal level as well. Our understanding was unclear at best, moments of revelations converted into bigger questions before another step of evolution. Our views were adjusting at every step, our collective vision sometimes fragmenting into a montage of individual interpretations, and then evolving again. This chapter is the reflection of the roles we played in the dam, critically analysed in an attempt to understand the role of the spatial professional in a participatory process.
cess of the Dam. Predictably, our self defined skills were portunity to explore the role of the spatial professtrongly oriented towards spatial expertise-- design, sional within a participatory framework of strategic spatial planning. graphics, spatial documentation and visualisation. Spatial professionals are typically cast in the role of realising concepts and “translating analysis of desires and dreams into the spatial”. However, the process in the Dam was too young to have such translatable desires and dreams readily available. We were involved in the process at a stage where spatial professionals rarely enter, the discovery of the neighbourhood in all its uniqueness and diversity. We were in a way building our own analysis to guide our spatial intentions. At such a time, the question arose of how we should go about gathering and analysing dreams and desires. Furthermore to do it in a way that is inclusive and representative. To which disciplinary domain did this belong? `
B. APPROACHES TO THE TASK i. Translation
Going into the project, we soon realised that there was very little analysis done of the context, be it social or spatial. We had to collaborate and learn from other disciplines like sociology and surveying to carry out the data collection. However, it was here, almost at the beginning of the project that we realised the catch in the concept of interdisciplinarity- the language. As spatial thinkers and practicitioners, our visual and oral language is very different from the language employed by sociologists, and both of which are unlike that used to communicate with and among the people of the neighStrategic spatial planning advocates an interdiscipliA. WHAT MAKES SPATIAL PROFESSIONALS PARTICI- nary approach of accessing knowledge domains from bourhood. Trying to negotiate between these different languages and logics was possibly one of the most tryPATE IN PARTICIPATION? different disciplines in a non-hierarchal process, inteing experiences for us as a studio. It was also the one grating social and human sciences into the spatial. that we lear¬nt the most from. The studio was introduced into the Dam as spatial professionals, in an attempt to spatialize a nascent drive for How would a group almost entirely composed of spatial neighbourhood participation. Cast in a role very differ- professionals respond to the province of the social? Or “Translation” is the term that was most often used by ent from our normal position as top down designers, is this also meant to be spatial? Or is this also meant the members of our group during our reflections. Be it we had to start with a self-analysis, trying to under- to be spatial? This is a challenge that we as a group designing party games that provoke spatial awareness, stand how we could intervene in the participatory pro- of spatial professionals decided to accept as an op- or exhaustive interviews with a wide cross section of 70
the Dammers, or trying to create a social network analysis, our forays into non spatial methodologies ended with a spatial translation, The studio was in a constant struggle with the representation of the collected data - presenting everything would of course be too complicated to convey much and choosing what to present entails imposing our judgement of what is important for the people.
our toolbox. In this sense, it was indeed more an exhibit than a tool of participation. It is the assumption that as spatial professionals we have the skills to communicate and represent the spatial through a universal language. However, these three months challenged this assumption, requiring a period of reflection on the practices and power dynamics of language. Perhaps, small, but a victory indeed, is the four narratives that were synthesised from the 3 months’ research, carefully telling a story in a language that is both visually and orally rich but also easily comprehensible.
The toolbox that was prepared for the co-design workshop illustrated this struggle. While we chose an exhaustive toolbox, the feedback we received did in fact show that while the flexibility and diversity was appreciated, it was simply too much information to digest and utilize productively in the context of a short workshop. ii. Mediating (Power?) Relations In retrospect, the studio could have kept in mind the preliminary nature of the workshop to be more selective about what to present, and to do this we could rely on our expertise of design processes. On the other hand, the polytunnel exhibit might have faced the contrary predicament. With the polytunnel the studio succumbed to its spatial instincts to produce a narrative of the dam by tying together our analysis. This was indeed an important step in making our toolbox more cohesive. However, there was also the feeling of the authors being final about the material produced without the mechanism of interaction or flexibility that we had in
Relying on Partners: Shaping Perspectives Coming in as outsiders, we relied heavily on upcoming but connected organizations and actors (especially NDVR and Dam Comite), not just for information and logistical support but more importantly to enable us to reach out to the people in their networks.
the less visible informal networks our final social network map of the organizations and individuals in the Dam largely affirmed our thesis that we were reaching the same set of closely connected people again. This was of course largely due to the constraints of time, but it did reinforce the blindspots.
One drawback of initially using existing networks was a sort of Matthew effect, where we were unable to significantly reach the people who were external to these organisations. Although we started with the idea of trying to uncover
At the same time, the social network map was also a tool that provoked a lot of interest among the people, potentially forging connections where there were common interests, and promoting co-working where 71
the interests were complementary. This highlights the of doing so in a manner that is just, representative and potential of the tool, particularly within a context of an allows active participation of all sections extended period of time. Promoting participation? Power negotiated through space Our limited knowledge in the social sciences was someSpace can be an important negotiator between and manifestation of different interests and ideals. Therefore, by using a spatial agenda for dialogue, we were able to bring different kinds of actors on the table. The involvement of the city planner Els and the Slaughterhouse site owner Alexander Druvel on the same platform as neighbourhood associations, social services, religious and charitable organizations were brought on
thing we struggled with in spite of most of this work being traditionally within the realm of the social. Our lack of training led us to innovate and design our own methods of tackling the question of data collection. Our approach to participation was through interventions in public spaces, pop up questionnaires and exhibitions in an attempt to create visibility, curiosity and to connect with the everyday Dammer as much as the
the same platform that was also accessible to the lay resident of the Dam. Spatial tools used in the workshop, especially the model served to defuse power, not having a fixed agenda but allowing for more open discussion.
social organizations.
The co-design workshop was a prime example of how visual and spatial tools formed the base of dialogue between various actors. By being a common denominator, we also demonstrated how spatial knowledge can be used by social actors to further their mission.
“In all of those moments we positioned ourselves as spatial planners but we tried to borrow and getting info from the outside and trying to fit it within the inside”; ‘inside’ being spatial logics and ‘outside’ non-spatial It is worth taking a moment to consider a different reality, what, if our studio team had a larger proportion of social professionals, what would our approach have been? Did the Studio lose something by using the logics that we did?
The Studio found that the position of a Spatial Professional comes with the power of mediating between lev- Did the Studio lose something by using the logics that els of actors, and at the same time the big responsibility we did? As the sole social professional on our team put 72
it and some of other the participants also echoed, we “anchored everything spatially and the logic behind has led us to make assumptions so fast, when we should still be listening” The spatial professional has often been accused of not listening, or of taking but cursory note of bottom up opinions. As a studio, we started out extremely careful to avoid this. Our interventions were designed so that the neighbourhood could actively interact with us through their opinions. However it is during the later parts of the studio after the successful co-design workshop at mid term, that “hard reality of time constraints, made us less open to the possibilities, to stop listening” and fall back into our designerly comfort zone of producing space. Given another chance, maybe the studio would build on this experience to experiment with other techniques, maybe by not having a spatial output at all, maybe it would have been just a Facebook group for the Dammers. Some would argue that it was important to stop dialogue in order to “get things done”, while others feel that as spatial professionals, maybe our lesson was that the final product may not be as important as the process itself.
C. THE DAM TRAJECTORY OF THE SPATIAL PROFES- communities to be self reliant, cohesive and aspire for SIONAL the better. Enriching the process can shape the collective, while a designer alone can only shape space. “We cannot divide the two ideas of social and spatial. Otherwise, we stay divided. We should improve our social Being exposed to new ways of thinking, new methodskills. We tried to learn more to better our skills”. ologies and new challenges that are not usually faced in the traditional parts we play as spatial professionals, A question with larger implications must be considered was a challenge to our perceptions, our methodologies at this point. Is this the appropriate moment to bring and our ego. the spatial professionals into the participatory process? While some in the studio feel that “a lot of the work that CONCLUSION we did, did not necessarily have to be conducted by a spatial professional”, others make the case for widening The process of reflection, like almost every other task our skill sets. While it is definitely true that we can never undertaken by the Studio has had to be done in a very do the work of all the disciplines, we also had a lot of constrained timeframe. However, this has been an exskills that nourished the process. We were able to create tremely significant step towards a clarity and underdialogue through the parallel study of space and socie- standing of our trajectory over the past three months ty, the constant quest to understand verbal statements by putting into words the feelings and concepts, forin terms of tangible spatial qualities and then re-convey mulating our choices and stating our instinctive underthis again in simple language. standings. Our involvement at this stage of the process is just as We have gone through the process of critical reflection important as the involvement of non-spatial actors is at on the ways in which we work, the concepts that domithe end of the project. This makes a strong case for an nated our discourse, the actions that we took, the prointer-disciplinary team that works together throughout cesses of change and ultimately, questions about the the process of analysis, participation and design as op- role of our identity as spatial professionals. posed to breaking it down into different domains. Admittedly it is a time consuming endeavour. However, It was interesting to note throughout, how while we such a process has great potential to create an ability in experimented with concepts of participation and all
its ingredients in the Dam, the Studio itself was a rich laboratory of multiplicity, conviviality, participation, inclusivity, exclusitivity, hierarchies, power structures, dialogue and co-production. The dynamics of the studio played an extremely important role in our actions, reactions and reflections in the Dam. Our course in the Studio has been reflected in the process of the Dam just as much as the trajectory of the Dam has influenced our actions in Studio. The Dam Studio proved to have a steep learning curve over the semester. Our excellent Studio guides and professors allowed us to experiment with concepts and methodologies, to make our own interpretations and then justify them by action. They chose to watch us struggle with ourselves and question our own views, and the struggle only served to make us stronger personally and as a Studio. We came in as a group with diverse points of view and it is to the credit of the studio as a whole that we leave with diverse views as well.
73
6 Oct.
Droom den Dam
attachments
posters used along the chalk line to interact and some results
Introducing the studio and the spatial intervention
Introducing the studio as a diverse group of people
Photo-booth: pictures of inhabitants with a statement about the Dam
Confession-booth sound-recordings of anything people have to say about the neighbourhood, its needs and future transformations Photo-flip: quick associations with pictures of spaces in the neighbourhood
Income
Find the Dam and win something: testing people’s perceptions regarding some statistics about the neighbourhood’s demographics Diversity
Density
Age demographics
“This is where I meet my friends” mapping meeting spaces in the neighbourhood
“This is my dream for the Dam” dreams and suggestions for the future of the Dam
“These are the places where I come the most� opinions and appreciations about places in the Dam
19 Nov.
midreview workshop
attachments
toolbox for workshop social network intervention use of space
Social network 1. SOCIAL NETWORKS 1.1.1 Organization network and connection strengths 1.1.2 Connection characteristics 1.1.3 Individual work network 1.1.4 Single node analysis 2. SPATIALIZING ACTORS 1.2.1 Location of actors & activities in the Dam 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTORS 1.3.1 Actors’ assets and needs 1.3.2 Reaching out in the Dam 1.3.3 Actor Methodology 1.3.4 Realizing a project? 1.3.5 Actor neighbourhood knowledge
Intervention REFERENCES 2.1.1 DOK GENT 2.1.2 Rabotsite 2.1.3 Park Groot Shijn 2.1.4 Kiosko 2.1.5 Welvaert Welton 2.1.6 Captain House AMBITION NOTE 2.2.1 Stedelijke ambitienota, Masterplan Slachthuissite Juli 2012 STRATEGIES 2.3.1 Temporary use strategies 2.3.2 Strategies for action ONGOING INTERVENTIONS 2.4.1 Droom den Dam events 2.4.2 Droom den Dam results 2.4.3 Questionnaires 2.4.4 Billboard 2.4.5 blog 2.4.6 citylab TIMELINE LADDER OF PARTICIPATION CITY SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS
Use of space NEIGHBOURHOOD STRUCTURE 3.1.1 Location and general characteristics 3.1.2 entrance spaces and their spatial qualities 3.1.3 barriers 3.1.4 street elements 3.1.5 transformations 3.1.6 a linear overview: density, scale, qualities and dreams USE OF PUBLIC SPACE 3.2.1 entrance spaces: use of space photo analysis 3.2.2 Dam’ers routes 3.2.3 analysis of spatial qualities 3.2.4 unintended use of the street 3.2.5 references of public space BUILT SPACE 3.3.1 analysis of density and variety 3.3.2 density comparison 3.3.3 analysis of typologies 3.3.4 typology references
13 & 14 Dec.
Toekomst Tunnel exhibit
attachments
4+1 narratives represented in panels and as storylines
Toekomst Tunnel Den Dam is een buurt met een rijk verleden, een unieke plek dichtbij het centrum van Antwerpen. Een plek die velen omschrijven als ‘een plek geïsoleerd van de rest’, ‘een dorp in de stad’ of ‘een buurt van verloren en vergeten ruimtes’. De 20ste eeuwse geschiedenis van den Dam draaide grotendeels rond de bedrijvigheid van de slachthuizen en deze rond het Lobroekdok. Vandaag liggen net deze plekken er verlaten bij of staat er hen een ingrijpende verandering te wachten. Dit heeft de buurt ertoe aangespoord om hier even bij stil te staan en samen na te denken over de identiteit van den Dam in het licht van de reeds uitgevoerde en geplande stedelijke ontwikkelingen. De verloren ruimtes die eens voor een binding zorgden in de wijk –zoals het slachthuis, het buurthuis, het jongerencentrum of zelfs de bankautomaat- hebben een leegte achtergelaten. Daarom is er opnieuw nood aan een plek die de buurt verbindt en echt van de buurt is.
zichzelf de buurt opnieuw toe te eigenen en te dromen over de toekomst. De Toekomsttunnel toont onze betrokkenheid van de voorbije 3 maanden. Het resultaat van dit interactieve leerproces wordt tentoongesteld in de vorm van vier verhaallijnen over den Dam. Gebaseerd op interviews en meetings met bewoners en organisaties die actief zijn in den Dam. Deze verhaallijnen willen bestaande percepties uitdagen en het debat, ideeën over de toekomst van de buurt stimuleren. De Toekomsttunnel is bedoeld als een ruimte die de betrokkenheid en nieuwe ideeën over de buurt op een tastbare manier wil tonen. Het is een forum bedoeld voor de bewoners van den Dam – een canvas dat een visuele vorm geeft aan het engagement dat er leeft in de buurt. We nodigen je uit om al deze ideeën en verhalen te verkennen en zo je eigen kijk op de wijk in vraag te stellen. Met behulp van deze transformerende ruimte nodigen we je zo uit om deel te nemen aan het De toekomsttunnel is een poging van de Studio Dam bouwen van de toekomst van deze prachtige wijk. met de actieve steun van locale bewoners en organisaties om een platform te creëren voor dialoog en debat over de buurt. Tegelijkertijd willen we met deze ruimtelijke ingreep enkele van de vergeten plekken terug op de agenda zetten en zichtbaar maken. De tunnel doet dienst als tijdelijke tentoonstellingsruimte en kan daarna gebruikt worden voor stadstuinieren. Deze ruimtelijke interventie geeft de bewoners de kans om
Vergeet mij niet Ooit was de Dam een welvarende en bruisende buurt. De tijden veranderden en veel van de, vaak dagelijks gebruikte, diensten van de Dam gingen verloren zoals een postkantoor, supermarkten, buslijnen en zelfs een bankautomaat! Op dit moment voelen veel mensen in den Dam de noodzaak van de diensten die ze missen en hebben ze het gevoel dat ze afgesloten geraken van de stad. Hoewel. Dit gevoel van ‘de vergeten plek’, de perceptie dat den Dam op haar eigen staat, is echter niet het enige wat de Dam eigen maakt. Veel waardevolle plekken zijn vergeten. Het dok, een waterfront waar andere buurten jaloers op kunnen zijn, de sterke identiteit van de Dam en hoe mensen daar samenwerken, hoe iedereen elkaar kent en door elkaar te helpen opvangt wat ze missen. Met helemaal in het midden een slachthuissite die ooit de centrale plek was en de potentie blijft hebben om dit ook in de toekomst te zijn. Dit verhaal is er een over inspiratie, transformatie en verandering. Een verhaal dat even wilt stilstaan bij de plekken die ook de Dam vergeten is en hoe zo’n plekken van evenveel, of zelfs meer, waarde kan zijn dan al die zaken die verloren zijn gegaan.
Een nieuw hart Den Dam is wijk met een erg rijke geschiedenis dankzij de relatie met het slachthuis en de haven. Deze centrale schakels van bedrijvigheid zorgden ervoor dat den Dam eeuwenlang een plek van ontmoeting en uitwisseling was. Met behulp van sporen van deze rijke geschiedenis gaan we op zoek naar het hart van den Dam. Naar den Dam in al zijn grandeur. Recent is er al heel wat veranderd op den Dam: zoals de heraanleg van wegen en voetpaden en het nieuwe Damplein. Zo werd er door de stad ook nieuw leven geblazen in de 24 hectare spoorwegemplacement, nu bekend als Park Spoor Noord. Dammers vertelden ons dat het park hun buurt op een positieve manier heeft beĂŻnvloed en verschillende sociale dynamieken heeft geactiveerd. Daarnaast benadrukken bewoners echter ook het belang van kleinere plekken op schaal van de buurt -zoals speelplekken, kleine parkjes, cafĂŠs en restaurants- en organisaties zoals de Elegeast als centrum waar mensen samenkomen. Den Dam van vandaag toont ons de buurt in al zijn diversiteit, dromen over de toekomst en nieuwe percepties over de identiteit van den Dam. Vandaag de dag wekken op til zijnde veranderingen de interesse van de stad en de Dammers. Samen zijn ze op zoek naar een visie om het hart van den Dam terug vorm te geven. Er wordt debat gevoerd over de nieuwe ontwikkelingen op de Slachthuissite, het revitaliseren van het Lobroekdok en nieuwe publieke plekken om het hart te stimuleren. Een kijk richting de toekomst toont ons de nieuwe bezorgdheden van de buurt en doet tegelijkertijd dromen over een nieuw centrum voor den Dam. Over de nieuwe identiteit van de buurt.
De echte Dammer De eerste Dammers werden aangetrokken door economische opportuniteiten zoals het slachthuis, de nabijheid van de haven en de spoorlijn doorheen de buurt. Deze industriële reuzen trokken met de stad een enorme hoeveelheid van mensen aan. Van de eigenaars van de slachthuizen tot ondernemers en werknemers, in de haven, fabrieken en voor de stad. De nabijheid van al die werkgelegenheid maakte van de Dam een goede plek om te wonen. Op die manier werd de Dam een woon-werkplek pur sang. Doorheen de tijd veranderde dit echter. Veel van de industriële activiteiten in en rond de Dam gingen verloren en de bevolking veranderde. De dam werd een plek ‘waar het nog betaalbaar was’. De opening van Park Spoor noord en speculaties over het nieuwe masterplan van de buurt bracht nieuwe dromen met zich mee voor de verschillende inwoners van de buurt. Dromen die resoneerde met de zoektocht van de Dammers naar een nieuwe identiteit in deze snel veranderende buurt met een grote diversiteit aan inwoners, een grote hoeveelheid ruimtelijke noden en een groeiende werkloosheidsgraad. Wanneer we naar de toekomst kijken, blijft de sterke woon-werk omgeving een grote aantrekking om naar de Dam te komen. Het samensmelten van werk en ruimte zorgt ervoor dat veel mensen hun eigen droom zullen kunnen realiseren en dat de Dam kan uitgroeien tot een buurt met werk voor haar inwoners. Een nieuwe identiteit voor een bloeiende buurt kan uit dit nieuw evenwicht tussen het leven en werken op de Dam groeien.
Dorp in de stad De Dam is een afgesloten stukje stad, met sterke grenzen zoals de sporen en het dok, die maar op een beperkt aantal punten kunnen overgestoken worden. Dit kan nadelig zijn, maar het kan ook als een pluspunt worden gezien. Mensen houden van het afgesloten karakter, het zorgt ervoor dat ‘de Dam’ een eigen entiteit is, een soort dorp binnen het weefsel van de stad. Het dorp heeft een kerk, een plein en een hoofdstraat, en iedereen kent iedereen. Maar is dat wel zo? Want in Schijnpoort wonen is niet hetzelfde als in Dam wonen, en wie leeft er eigenlijk in het oude industriële gedeelte van de wijk? Elke buurt blijkt zijn eigen herkenningspunten en dorpsfiguren te hebben die karakter geven aan de plek, maar die de mensen uit de andere buurten toch niet zo goed blijken te kennen. En die kerk, die blijkt helemaal niet aan het plein te liggen. Het zijn de specifieke plekken en figuren, die samen dit stedelijke dorp doen leven. Er zijn echter ook leegtes in dit web van karakters: identiteiten die er niet meer zijn of die niet iedereen aanspreken. Het netwerk zou nog kunnen sterker kunnen worden. Een nieuwe plek in het netwerk zou ervoor kunnen zorgen dat mensen uit de verschillende delen van de buurt elkaar beter leren kennen en banden kunnen groeien. Zoals op een dorpsplein, waar iedereen zich thuis voelt.