REPURPOSING PUBLIC SPACES INTO URBAN COMMONS : FOR A COLLECTIVE SOCIETY
Sofia Croso Mazzuco
83
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON FACULTY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING
RESEARCH QUESTION:
How can underused public spaces be repurposed collectively to support community regeneration?
Sofia Croso Mazzuco BA Word Count: 7340
Being a major project in Urban Design and City Planning submitted to the faculty of the Built Environment as part of the requirements for the award of the MsC in Urban Design and City Planning at University College London, I declare this project is entirely my own work and that ideas, data and images, as well as direct quotations, drawn from elsewhere are identified and referenced.
1
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to Joost Beunderman, who has supervised me with much enthusiasm throughout the development of this major project and to Filipa Wunderlich, my personal tutor, who has helped clarify many ideas from the beginning. I am grateful to all my family, who has supported me in every way in the development of this project with continuous encouragement and affection. To all of my colleagues, with whom I have shared brilliant moments throughout the year, and who have inspired me greatly. 2
ABSTRACT
pg 2 pg 4 pg 8
1 . INTRODUCTION
pg 9
- PROBLEM & JUSTIFICATION - SECONDARY QUESTION - KEY OBJECTIVES - CONTRIBUTION TO PRACTICE - PROJECT METHODOLOGY
pg 10 pg 11 pg 11 pg 11 pg 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
CONTENT
2 . LITERATURE REVIEW - (i) FAILURE OF THE CENTRALISED GOVERNANCE MODEL - (ii) PUBLIC SPACE (LOST) VALUE - (iii) PARTICIPATORY HANDS-ON APPROACHES - FRAMEWORK FOR THE URBAN COMMONS
pg 12 pg 14 pg 17 pg 18
3 . CASE STUDIES REVIEW - INTRODUCTION - CASE STUDIES - CASE STUDIES TOOLKIT
pg 21 pg 22 pg 33
4 . PROJECT - METHODOLOGY - SITE 1 - SITE 2
pg 34 pg 35 pg 39
5 . CONCLUSION
pg 79
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
pg 82
3
FIGURES NUMBER -FIG.1 -FIG.2 -FIG.3 -FIG.4 -FIG.5 -FIG.6 -FIG.7 -FIG.8 -FIG.9 -FIG.10 -FIG.11 -FIG.12 -FIG.13 -FIG.14 -FIG.15 -FIG.16 -FIG.17 -FIG.18 -FIG.19 -FIG.20 -FIG.21 -FIG.22 -FIG.23 -FIG.24 -FIG.25 -FIG.26 -FIG.27 -FIG.28 -FIG.29 -FIG.30 -FIG.31 -FIG.32 -FIG.33 -FIG.34 -FIG.35 -FIG.36 -FIG.37 -FIG.38 -FIG.39 -FIG.40 4
NAME
PAGE
From loss of urban control to the urban commons. Central governance failure Civic Economy implementation requirements Big Society initial aims Public services mostly being affected by UK public cuts Alternatives or gradual process? UK future possibilities Cuts affecting culture and public space The Commons as defined by Elinor Ostrom Framework and elements supporting the commons. First collectives structured around the commons. Results of public space privatisation. Designing the Urban Commons Public Space x Urban Commons The benefits of public space Localism act rights Tactical Urbanism and its relationship to street art. Tactical Urbanism collaboration process and learning by doing. Citizen to institutions What is the citizens’ role? “The Triple Challenge” “The Pathway From Learning Skills ...” The possibilities for old tools: consumerism or prosumerism. The Hands-on communities model Gospel Oak Urban Commons Box ring for training and pallettes for multiple uses. Motivational images under Viaduct Alcantara Machado. Box ring for training and pallettes for multiple uses. Garrido demonstrating tools utility during AA/NAI workshop. Street before regeneration Community rediscovering play capacity of the street Perfomance taking place Civic pride after the collaborative regeneration process. Public space disrupted by car infrastructure. Urban furniture as DIY activity. Children testing play possibilities on public spaces Colletive discussion and action Process of regeneration starting to take place Workshops space Food growing Urban Commons network
8 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25
NUMBER -FIG.41 -FIG.42 -FIG.43 -FIG.44 -FIG.45 -FIG.46 -FIG.47 -FIG.48 -FIG.49 -FIG.50 -FIG.51 -FIG.52 -FIG.53 -FIG.54 -FIG.55 -FIG.56 -FIG.57 -FIG.58 -FIG.59 -FIG.60 -FIG.61 -FIG.62 -FIG.63 -FIG.64 -FIG.65 -FIG.66 -FIG.67a -FIG.67b -FIG.68 -FIG.69 -FIG.70 -FIG.71 -FIG.72 -FIG.73 -FIG.74 -FIG.75 -FIG.76 -FIG.77 -FIG.78 -FIG.79
NAME Underused public spaces before regeneration Adapted plaza. Different adapted public spaces Network of underused public spaces in Zaragoza Cantiere Barca before intervention Structure for social interaction Repurposed building. Playing elements. Underused garage before regeneration Discarded material Assembled work Assembling work Deserted streets. Strategy for tactical interventions Cycling lanes, green elements, stalls Hands-on action on pedestrian infrastructure Car dominated streets London Play Street London Play Street Bristol Big Lunch City of Bologna car dominated environment The City as a Commons, poster Ideas for a common city . Citizens discussing on the city Mapped ideas for a collaborative city Awareness and learning process . Project Phasing Intentional initial step for public space regeneration Underused green public space Site mapping and underground Luxham and Waxham Underused green public space in between blocks Underused green public space and parking area Underused plaza Learning center shot Underused sidewalk and parking area Underused paved surface in between blocks Underused green public space in between blocks Underused paved surface amidst painted walls Failed collaborative allotments
PAGE 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 33 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37
NUMBER -FIG.80 -FIG.81 -FIG.82 -FIG.83 -FIG.84 -FIG.85 -FIG.86 -FIG.87a -FIG.87b -FIG.88 -FIG.89a -FIG.89b -FIG.90 -FIG.91 -FIG.92 -FIG.93 -FIG.94 -FIG.95 -FIG.96 -FIG.97a -FIG.97b -FIG.98 -FIG.99 -FIG.100 -FIG.101 -FIG.102 -FIG.103 -FIG.104 -FIG.105 -FIG.106 -FIG.107 -FIG.108 -FIG.109 -FIG.110 -FIG.111 -FIG.112 -FIG.113 -FIG.114 -FIG.115 -FIG.116
NAME Underused parking area and garages Underused green public space in between blocks Some social activity in front of the housing blocks Paved surface being renovated by the council Paved surface being renovated by the council Lacking vitality in front of housing blocks Underused green and paved public space Underused public spaces The issues with ‘commoning’ Figure ground for project site 2 - Gospel Oak community. Indirect participation model. Camden Council front page of consultation document. Camden Plan priority areas. Active participation model proposed. Priorities for active participation model. Collaborative strategy for community regeneration. Project methodology. GO plan with public spaces Images of improved public spaces GO plan with areas targeted for jobs Opportunities identified by CC in GO Queens Crescent regeneration Opportunities identified by CC in GO Queens Crescent x Grafton Road QC x Weddington Road QC x Alcroft Road QC x Bassett Street QC flower stall QC technology stall QC Market: decaying market Interviewee working at food stall Interviewee working at food stall Interviewee working in fabric stall at QC Market Interviewee walking with her dog Interview 1 findings Interview 2 findings Interview 3 findings Interview 4 findings Interview 5 findings Underused pUnderused public spaces typology
PAGE
NUMBER
37 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 38 39 40 40 40 41 41 42 43 44 44 44 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 49 49 49 49 50 51 52 52 53 55
-FIG.117 -FIG.118 -FIG.119 -FIG.120 -FIG.121 -FIG.122a -FIG.122b -FIG.123 -FIG.124 -FIG.125 -FIG.126 -FIG.127 -FIG.128 -FIG.129 -FIG.130 -FIG.131 -FIG.132 -FIG.133 -FIG.134 -FIG.135 -FIG.136 -FIG.137 -FIG.138 -FIG.139 -FIG.140 -FIG.141 -FIG.142 -FIG.143 -FIG.144 -FIG.145 -FIG.146 -FIG.147 -FIG.148
NAME Underused public space typology Strategy for supporting the ‘urban commons’ Toolkit application Step 1 Theory of change Step 1 Underused garages and lack of social life on street. Underused garages on Southampton Road. Underused garages on Southampton Road. Workshop Activities Acrobatic circus Acrobatic circus Acrobatic circus Circus costume design Circus lighting Circus set design Circus Tools Waste from Queens Crescent market. More waste from Queens Crescent market. Workshop on discussion about the future of G.O Performatic arts. Performatic arts. Underused paved public space Underused green public space Underused street Performatic arts being practised on the streets of GO Performatic arts on green spaces of Gospel Oak Tactical elements made by the community Repurposing Queens Crescent. Gospel Oak Online exchange platform Gospel Oak co-operative structure. Gospel Oak Network of Urban Commons Gospel Oak Urban Commons structure Gospel Oak Urban Commons Gospel Oak regeneration
PAGE 56 57 58 59 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 63 66 66 66 66 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76/77
5
TABLES NUMBER -TAB.1 -TAB.2 -TAB.3 -TAB.4 -TAB.5 -TAB.6 -TAB.7 -TAB.8 -TAB.9 -TAB.10 -TAB.11 -TAB.12 -TAB.13 -TAB.14 -TAB.15 -TAB.16 -TAB.17 -TAB.18 -TAB.19 -TAB.20 -TAB.21 -TAB.22 -TAB.23 -TAB.24 -TAB.25 -TAB.26 -TAB.27 -TAB.28 -TAB.29 -TAB.30 -TAB.31 -TAB.32 -TAB.33 -TAB.34 -TAB.35 -TAB.36 -TAB.37 -TAB.38 -TAB.39 -TAB.40 6
NAME
PAGE
Project methodology Literature review classification. Garrido Box Club description. Evaluation regeneration process. - Garrido Bridge Street description. Evaluation of different elements - regeneration Bridge Street TaMaLaCa description. Evaluation of different elements - regeneration TaMaLaCa R-Urban Description. Evaluation of different elements - regeneration R-Urban. Zaragoza description. Evaluation of different elements - regeneration Zaragoza. Cantiere Barca description. Evaluation of different elements - regeneration Cantiere Barca Remakery description. Evaluation of different elements - regeneration Remakery Better Block description. Evaluation of different elements - regeneration Better Block. Street Party description. Evaluation of different elements - Street Party Lab Gov description. Evaluation of different elements - Lab Gov. Toolkit from case studies SWOT Analysis Luxham & Waxham Site 1 project process Camden Council proposal SWOT analysis Changes suggested CC proposal for jobs & enterprise SWOT analysis for jobs & enterprise Suggested changes by CC in GO for jobs CC proposal for public space SWOT analysis for public space Interview 1 insights Interview 2 insights Interview 3 insights Interview 4 insights Interview 5 insights Combined elements informing GO regeneration Toolkit application Step 2
11 12 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 36 38 44 44 44 45 45 45 46 46 50 51 52 52 53 54 64
NUMBER -TAB.41 -TAB.42
NAME Theory of change Step 2 Theory of change Step 3
PAGE 65 72
REPURPOSING PUBLIC SPACES INTO URBAN COMMONS FOR A COLLECTIVE SOCIETY
7
ABSTRACT This project proposes a model for a collaborative society based on repurposing underused community public spaces as ‘urban commons’. The concept of the ‘commons’ was set by economist Elinor Ostrom to define public land and resources (such as water and air) accessible to all members of society for their benefit, around which commoners organised themselves as self-governing collectives. What is recognised by scholars as ‘the tragedy of the commons’ is the privatisation of public spaces and resources, a process still enduring in our cities, with not only public spaces but also all kinds of services being privatised, such as health provision, food production and culture.
This project suggests that the ‘commons’ can support a networked collaborative city and identifies four elements that make up the ‘urban commons’: community public space, hands-on activities, collective governance and benefits supporting community development. It sustains a participation model based on empowerment through hands-on action, where learning plays a crucial role, contributing to the awareness and evolution of a community.
Nonetheless, current socio-economic crisis has opened a discussion for an inverse process. In the UK, the Big Society agenda set by David Cameron in 2011 aimed to: (i) devote more power to communities for local development, (ii) open up social services, for communities to innovatively co-produce goods and services (iii) promote social action, with individuals donating their time, resources and skills to contribute to community development.
The first stage represents the trial to engage community in the actual handson repurposing of public space. This in the end fails but, nonetheless, it provides reflections that will lead to the second stage. The second stage proposes adaptations to the participatory planning system in the UK. A plan set by Camden Council for Gospel Oak regeneration, London, is analysed in order to identify elements capable of empowering community that are not yet right because the community is still considered a passive recipient of services. An active participation model is then proposed to achieve benefits that will empower community at individual and collective level, while contributing to the discussion on effective participation models.
This project proposal is divided in two stages.
Government is still struggling to achieve the Big society agenda, the two main issues being, first, that disadvantaged communities are not being targeted while influential people are becoming ever more empowered, and second and foremost, that interface between government and citizens is still unclear, and questions arise on the their individual role and capability inside the collaborative governance model. Grassroot projects exemplify how collaboration can take place at a very local level (tactical) but how to scale this to city level (strategic) is still very much unclear.
‘URBAN COMMONS’
INABILITY TO CONTROL THE CITY FROM A TOPDOWN APPROACH
ISSUES WITH PARTICIPATION NEED FOR CITIZENS’ DIRECT PARTICIPATION
Fig 01 - From loss of urban control to the urban commons. 8
Conclusion and further recommendations are drawn to stimulate the repurposing of underused public spaces as ‘urban commons’, with awareness.
YOUR COMMUNITY, YOUR CITY...
PUBLIC SPACE AS A VALUABLE ELEMENT TO UNLOCK EMPOWERMENT
1.INTRODUCTION: Public space value has diminished due to its privatisation, following the overcontrol of its’ accessibility and the limitation of activities allowed to take place within it (Carr,1992). Meanwhile, meaningful activities have been withdrawn to the confinement of private spaces and contributed to diminishing the value of public life (Sennett, 1977). Soon, “public life has become confused with commercial transaction and consumption” (Heathcote, 2012) and the meaning of public space somehow lost. Recapturing the value of public space is essential for urban development. All types of public space have their value, but they contribute to different outcomes. Larger and impersonal public spaces in central areas offer fleeting types of interaction which could still be meaningful. Public spaces in residential areas could support community development. This project explores the repurposing of communities’ underused public spaces as ‘urban commons’ for collective development. An important distinction must be emphasised between public space and ‘urban commons’. Public space can be defined as “all places publicly owned or of public use, accessible and enjoyable by all for free and without a profit motive” (Charter of Public Space, 2016-p.1). Urban commons “suggest a community of commoners that actively utilise and upkeep whatever it is that is being communed, in the new social definition the term has taken on through grassroots projects and scholarly rethinking...common access has the potential to offer a richer form of interaction with the city than public ownership.” (Bingham-Hall, 2015-p.2). Commons were defined by Elinor Ostrom as all resources and spaces open for common use for the benefit of communities’ development. It is engendered by a culture of active ownership and management with communities building, sustaining and benefitting from the ‘common’ space and its resources. The concept of ‘urban commons’ has been explored in recent discussions (Theatrum Mundi, LSE, 2015) about the value of public space, to raise awareness on its potential to support community development. Emphasis was placed on how to overcome the hyper-local scale of ‘commoning’ to implement it on wider city strategies. For that, it is suggested that governmental thinking is influenced through commoners creating a “cohesive language that defines ways in which the ‘commons’ can be organised, clarification on the values it unlocks and a clear working methodology.” Governmental support to ‘commoning public space would support a new model of public life involving citizens collaboration to produce and access vital resources alternative to the “unsustainable model in which all necessities of urban survival are distanced from consumers by markets, corporations and public bodies.” (Bingham-Hall, 2015-p.3).
This research-based project is grounded on emerging citizen initiatives that are overcoming the diminished value of public life and the over-commercialisation of public spaces by active citizen involvement on the repurposing of public spaces. Through meaningful activities that support community development new approaches for place-making are highlighted from a participatory perspective. Emphasis is given to the value of ‘Tactical Urbanism’, defined by Anthony Garcia by disruptive urban interventions that rely on a ‘lean’ (Ries, 2011) and ‘common’ (Ostrom, 2012) approach to regenerating public spaces within communities. These collective actions enhance the social and educational value of public space throughout the whole regeneration process: from citizen organization to action itself and from space management to the knowledge emerging from hands-on action. The resulting knowledge benefits citizens and urban practitioners in different ways - citizens are learning about their power to take change into their hands and raising the awareness of the values of public space and the resulting public life, while practitioners and policy makers are stimulated to understand that citizens can be more than recipient of public services, and take action to generating them instead. Within this contextualisation, public space is undeniably a valuable element for social innovation and its openness and flexibility of use must be supported for alternative and meaningful activities and modes of appropritation to emerge.
9
1.2.PROBLEM & JUSTIFICATION The city as an autonomous entity (Ratti, 2015) that escapes control trials is emphasised in the discourse of urban practitioners as a positive element that contributes to shaping collective governance. The lack of urban control is seen as an opportunity to reimagine the city in thousand different ways (Koolhaas, 1995a ), and so must be approached as “an inevitable condition which must be worked with in a positive light” (Awan, Schneider and Till, 2011) accepting citizens’ knowledge and participation while having the courage to allow citizens to shape their environment (Ratti et al, 2015) Grassroots initiatives based on collective citizens’ action within public space have initially emerged out of disastrous contexts in developing countries, where traditional planning tools could not offer people dignified living conditions. Since the last decade, they have also become popular in the Northern hemisphere due to the social disaster of ‘the tragedy of the commons’ (Rosa et al, 2015), which is defined as the privatisation of common spaces and resources initially meant for all citizens in support of community development. The reconquering of the city and its public spaces by citizens is a wise alternative to the difficulty of controlling the urban environment from a centralised governance model (Koolhaas, 1995b).
Openness to collective appropriation of public space and alternative service provision is currently taking place in the UK and has started through the agenda of the Big Society (2011) set by David Cameron that aims to empower citizens to achieve what the state has been unable to deliver. Nonetheless, this approach has failed and caused an increased divided society, with influential people stimulating decision making while disadvantaged communities were not empowered as potential contributors. The major issue with the Big Society agenda is that it supports a passive model to participation where communities are invited to opine but not encouraged to be active participants on the moulding of social services from within their communities and using networked local expertise. To create social innovation, citizens should be encouraged to “think creatively about how to construct a future that is good for all members of society and the environment “ (Britton et al, 2015-p.21), targeting long-term benefits to the community, all citizens and the environment. The gap between government intention to devote more power to society and the actual achievement of it is still wide and the combination between grassroots and strategic planning a challenging balance. “Despite their best intentions, governments have struggled to convert their ‘empowerment’ into long term change through widespread participation...but the ambition is still strong. ” (Britton et al, 2015-p.22) This project adds to the awareness on how public space could help bridge this gap and empower communities by repurposing public spaces into ‘urban commons’ through engaging with performance and visual arts, while contributing to wider planning issues within the UK context.
10
1.3. SECONDARY QUESTIONS
1.6. METHODOLOGY
- What is the learning and awareness value intertwined within the co-production and hands-on model to participation?
KEY OBJECTIVES
- How can citizens be stimulated to contribute to the collective development of their communities?
LITERATURE REVIEW
- How can public space be revitalised both for community development on the long-term and for fleeting use as entertainment ?
FRAMEWORK FOR URBAN COMMONS
1.4. KEY OBJECTIVES - Create enhanced awareness on the value of public space as ‘urban commons’ on the role of community regeneration and urban development. - Make evident the social and learning value of participation and hands-on production, both short-term and long-term. - Suggest more meaningful approaches to a participatory planning framework in the UK, which bridges between the tactical and the strategic level. - Explore the role and power of art and performance within the context of collaborative community regeneration.
1.5. CONTRIBUTION TO PRACTICE The value of public space has been underestimated. UN-Habitat (Public Space Toolkit, 2015) laments over this fact and commits itself to being dedicated to its development worldwide from now on, proving that public space has a central role in urban development. Understanding that public space can be transformed into ‘urban commons’ by the active commitment of citizens is valuable to stimulate practitioners and governments to pursue a new outlook on the various underused public spaces within communities and to become aware of the negative impacts of its privatisation, which prevents any collective form of appropriation. As outlined in the report by Designed to Scale (00 Architecture), participation is still on its’ infancy and scaling it up will require many years and a network made of people and places. This research project brings clarity to important elements that can be unlocked for participation, while exploring the power of the arts and culture within this framework. Raised awareness on the value of public space for a city of mutual cooperation is what this piece of work is aimed at contributing to.
CASE STUDIES REVIEW FRAMEWORK FOR SCALING PARTICIPATION
TOOLKIT FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BASED ON ‘URBAN COMMONS’ AND PARTICIPATION SCALING
SITE 1: TRIAL ON HANDS-ON ACTION & LESSONS LEARNED
CHANGE OF SITE AND NEW PROJECT METHODOLOGY
SITE 2 - GOSPEL OAK: CAMDEN PLAN & PARTICIPATION STRATEGY ANALYSIS
SITE 2: ADAPTING PASSIVE PARTICIPATION MODEL TO ACTIVE COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
ANALYSING PROJECT IMPACT ON COMMUNITY & CITY LEVEL
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS Table 1 - Project methodology 11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 - FAILURE OF THE CENTRALISED GOVERNANCE MODEL
The literature review aims to clarify the structure of the ‘urban commons’ while contextualising its value on recent planning discussions. It is divided into three sections that explain (1) why the centralised governance system failed and how the need for collective governance models emerged. It then (2) explores the value of public space as ‘commons’ and finally (3) how collaborative approaches are being tested and scaled-up to community level.
The failure of the formal system to urban planning has led to the recognition that the city is ‘an autonomous entity that has its own ways’ (Ratti and Claudel, 2015-p.30) and that it should be reimagined in different ways (Koolhaas,1995) to better address citizens’ wellbeing. The loss of control should be regarded as “an inevitable condition that must be worked with in a positive light” (Till, 2011-p30) while acknowledging the value of different actors and citizens’ empowerment possibility. Acknowledgement must also negotiate between social, environmental and ethical issues, while acknowledging “spatial production belongs to a much wider group of actors – from artists to users, from politicians to builders – with a diverse range of skills and intents.” (Till, 2011- pg.28)
(1) - FAILURE OF THE CENTRALISED GOVERNANCE SIGNALING TO THE NEED FOR COLLABORATIVE MODELS - Civic Economy - Big Society - Public Cuts in the UK - Predictions (2) - PUBLIC SPACE (LOST) VALUE - Public Cuts Effect - ‘Urban Commons’ - Collective Institutions - ‘Tragedy of the commons’ - Theatrum Mundi - Public Space x Urban Commons - Value of Public space - Localism act: right to bid (3) - PARTICIPATORY HANDS-ON APPROACHES - Public Space as Urban Commons - Scaling up participatory processes - Government x Citizens - Citizens’ role - DIY Benefits - Active wellbeing - Co-producing services - Awareness
Table. 02 : Literature review classification. 12
failure of top-down planning system system
opportunity to reimagine the city
acknowledging value of different actors
consideration of social, environmental and etical issues
Fig 02 - Central governance failure and opportunities for collective governance.
Civic Economy: A ‘civic economy’ is aligned to the new possibility of reimagining the urban. Based on collaboration instead of competition, it emphasises social values to empower people in achieving what cannot be delivered by the welfare state - such as health and social capital. It combines “the spirit of entrepreneurship with the aspiration of civic renewal” (Ahrensbach and Conway, 2012 - p.9) and emerges out of locally led initiatives to address social, environmental, spatial and economic issues. It acknowledges that the scarcity of environmental resources combined with acute social issues requires innovative and sustainable solutions, questioning the modus-operandi of current supply chains and enables “citizens to be co-producers and investors instead of just consumers.” (Ahrensbach and Conway, 2012 - p.15) Three points are outlined for the possibilities of implementing it: CIVIC ECONOMY (i) AWARENESS
(ii) FEASIBILITY
“the acknowledgment that a civic economy can contribute to community resilience, innovation and collective prosperity”
“identifying means in which the private, public and third sector can create a fertile ground for its flourishing”
Fig. 03 : Civic Economy implementation requirements.
(iii) LOCAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP “localities valuing the role of local entrepreneurship and enabling them to create change in different contexts and topics.“
Big Society: The civic economy is central to the Big Society, which aims to focus on the “potential for more locally-led innovation to address social issues”. (Civilexchange.org.uk, 2016-p.9) Set by David Cameron in 2010, it says that change must be driven by citizens with the government support, and is based on: (i) community empowerment, (ii) opening up public services, (iii) social action. Recent Audits analyse this as a failure, since disadvantaged communities were not targeted and only the more affluent people were empowered. Recommendations are that it should be more engagement with the volunteering and private sector to deliver services in ways alternative to the free market, which is considered to work “against the Big Society” (Civilexchange. org.uk, 2016-p.62) and to develop formal mechanisms for dialogue between citizens and government. (i) COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
(ii) OPENING UP PUBLIC SERVICES
(iii) SOCIAL ACTION
‘local people taking control of how things are done in their area and being helped to do so by local government and others’
“described by the government as ‘ public sector organisations and individuals demonstrating innovative ways of delivering public services and charities, social enterprises and private companies showing new ways of delivering public services’”
‘defined by the government as ‘people being, and being encouraged to be, more involved in their communities through giving time, money and other resources.’
Fig 04 - Big Society initial aims
2. LITERATURE REVIEW MAIN PUBLIC CUTS IN THE UK PUBLIC REALM
CULTURE
ENVIRONMENT
parks and publicly owned public spaces
theatres, libraries, leisure
sustainability
Fig 05- Public services mostly being affected by UK public cuts (Parker, 2014)
Predictions: Despite the optimistic view that public cuts are accelerating social innovation the question is “whether these innovations will be sufficient to create a sustainable new approach to delivering local public services...they will not. Ultimately, the only route to sustainable services is to look beyond the public sector to wider society. Councils must take on a much bigger role in facilitating civic action, building stronger communities and encouraging the emergence of the new social economy. The next phase of public service reform will not be about public service reform” (Parker, 2014c-p7), instead getting society organized to create social services, with focus on public realm and cultural infrastructure.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS...
Public Cuts: Public cuts in the UK are affecting mostly the fields of culture, planning and environmental services. Social action in these fields is paramount, so they can be delivered in different ways instead of disappearing. Economic scarceness could result in three possible scenarios for the upcoming years (Parker, 2014a): (i) wasteland: radical cuts in culture provision and parks management; (ii) wild meadows: government withdraws responsibility gives emphasis to delivering few services, expecting citizens’ action; and (iii) the commons, with shared responsibility between government, communities and business. “The common is an optimistic – some might say slightly utopian future in which cuts are a catalyst not just for innovation in public services, but for the building of a stronger social and voluntary economy. If we are to have less government, then one way or another we will need a stronger society. A key question...is whether the wasteland, wild meadow and commons are really different trajectories...or whether they are actually a series of stages through which most councils are currently passing “ (Parker, 2014 b– p8).
WASTELAND radical cuts starting from public space and culture provision (i)
WILD MEADOWS
COMMONS
government’s withdrawn responsibility for welfare state
shared responsibility between government, communities and business (iii)
(ii)
OR GRADUAL PROCESS ?
Fig 06 - Alternatives or gradual process? UK future possibilities on public cuts (Parker,2014) 13
2.2 - PUBLIC SPACE (LOST) VALUE
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
UK CUTS
Public Cuts Effect: Public spaces are to be largely affected by public cuts, and thus hold great potential of being taken over and managed by communities. The role of the government in leisure is switching from provider to partner and facilitator, aiming for citizen empowerment and seeking a framework to unlock human capital aligned with the possibility for social enterprises to emerge. De-municipalisation processes are focusing on “handing parks and cultural services to the community, spin off leisure services into self-financing trusts and support greater social action in their neighbourhood” (Parker, 2014a-p.7). UK citizens must be prepared to “accept more litter on the streets, fewer libraries and theatres, call centre operatives being replaced by websites and parks that are left to turn into wild meadows.” (Parker, 2014b - p6) The emergent model seeking to minimise the negative impacts involves a “mix of technology, preventive investment, integration of council services with those of the NHS and others, and the creation of a new deal between local government and citizens about who does what.” (Parker, 2014 c- p6) PUBLIC REALM
TO BE TAKEN OVER BY COMMUNITIES
CULTURE
- in partnership with volunteering and public sector
ENVIRONMENT
- government as facilitator
Collective Institutions: Recent discussions on alternative means of co-producing social services through reorganization of civic action is being inspired by the idea of adapting the commons concept to urban spaces (‘urban commons’),where citizens’ institutions get organised to co-produce vital resources. A collaborative society will only be possible upon emergence of “solid resilient institutions to create values which regulate the behavior of individuals in a way that solves the problems of today and makes the future brighter” (Moor, 2013a - p.5).
COMMONS
INSTITUTIONS
SPACE
RESOURCES
must be collective
must be accessible
extracted from the space
ACTIVITIES to be set by the group according to their needs
BENEFITS Fig 09- Framework and elements supporting the commons.
Fig 07 - cuts affecting culture and public space and opportunity for citizens appropriation
Urban Commons: The idea of collaborative management to a piece of land or resource is not something new. Economist Elinor Ostrom defined the term ‘commons’ as all natural elements and spaces held accessible to all member of society - such as air, water and land - which, historically were managed by citizens’ institutions (Ostrom, 1990) that defined how resources should be governed to benefit those who kept up with it. COMMONS natural resources and sources for vital needs
ACCESSIBLE TO ALL MEMBER OF SOCIETY - explored through citizens collective institutions
Fig 08 - The Commons as defined by Elinor Ostrom (1990) 14
Historically, institutions for collective action have emerged from socioeconomic crisis to address service provision (healthcare, energy, food, infrastructure) by citizens and for citizens, always with a social, environmental or economic goal. Collectives are united to co-produce or acquire products from the free market, based on self-regulation and self-management, with co-governance set for the ethic functioning of activities and use of commons goods. Collectives are not necessarily against the free-market, but commercialisation of their co-production could only occur after their personal needs are fulfilled, in that way supporting a “‘moral economy’ that creates a balance between the short-term market and the long-term supply from the citizens” (Moor, 2013b- p.20) while diminishing the gap between production and consumption of products and services provision. Some decide to work collaboratively with governments while others keep away from it and the level of active participation also has nuances that vary according to issues being tackled and its level of complexity.
Tragedy of the ‘Commons’: The first wave of collective institutions emerged before the establishment of the welfare state with artisans on the city and farmers on rural areas, both dependent on ‘common’ land as a source and resource.
cultivating the land
ARTISANS
FARMERS
FIRST COLLECTIVES STRUCTURED AROUND THE COMMONS:
(commons as source)
extracting material from the land (commons as resource)
Fig 10 - First collectives structured around the commons.
The ‘tragedy of the commons’ occurred due to the “wave of liberalization starting in the eighteenth century that threatened various forms of common property throughout Western Europe. The space that is necessary for bottom-up institutions for collective action to develop and thrive disappeared under increasing pressure from the upcoming nation states…private property was promoted as the finest way to stimulate economic growth… Common property and economic cooperation were considered obstacles.” (Moor, 2013c – p14) In the UK this was driven by the ‘Enclosures’, an Act of Parliament aimed at privatising open land used as commons.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW Theatrum Mundi: Sennett has widely discussed throughout his bibliography the issue affecting public life and culture, holding a poetic vision of the city as a performance and citizens as actors. He founded Theatrum Mundi (2012), an inter-disciplinary group (London School of Economics) by artists and urbanists, to disseminate the value of culture and public space on collaboratively planning. TM recently launched a competition about ‘urban commons’, in order to spread the awareness of the value of public space and how its overprivatisation is preventing collectives to “develop the strong associational and social life fundamental to healthy human existence” (Bingham-Hall, 2015a - p.1). The social life based on consumption models leaves no space for co-production and neither for stronger communities. Moreover, disadvantaged groups not only can they not participate in the consumption-led public life but they are also unable to cultivate public spaces to produce what they cannot have access to monetarily, such as fresh food and culture. TM also criticises the fact that there is too much emphasis on urban commons as guerilla gardening, defending that “urban society will be revitalised by the provision of space for people to produce their own food, energy, culture, democracy and learning in strong organisational and associational ways.” (Bingham-Hall, 2015b-p.1)
The privatisation of the commons in rural areas can be compared to privatisation of public space in the urban context, hindering opportunities for collective benefit. Privatisation of public spaces coincided with meaningful activities being transferred to private spaces (Sennett, 1977) and thus, the loss of public life.
PRIVATISATION OF THE COMMONS PRIVATISATION OF PUBLIC SPACE
THREAT TO CITIZENS COLLECTIVES
FREE MARKET SERVICE PROVISION -
LOSS OF PUBLIC LIFE
MEANINGFUL ACTIVITIES DRAWN TO PRIVATE SPACE
Fig. 12 : Designing the Urban Commons, TM competition (source: theatrum-mundi.org, 2015)
Fig. 11 - Results of public space privatisation. 15
Urban Commons x Public Space: An important distinction must be made between public space and urban commons. The first is aimed at leisure activities and citizens’ passive approach to its upkeep. Commons “suggests a community of commoners that actively utilise and upkeep whatever it is that is being commoned, in the new social definition the term has taken on through grassroots projects and scholarly rethinking.” (Parker, 2015c - p.2)
PUBLIC SPACE citizens not entitled to space management
CAN BECOME
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
BENEFITS THAT PUBLIC SPACE AS URBAN COMMONS CAN PROVIDE
URBAN COMMONS citizens upkeep and utilise space for their benefit
Fig 13- Public Space x Urban Commons
Value of Public Space: All public spaces have potential to become ‘commonised’ and it has been recognised that “public space has not been given the attention it deserves in literature, and... in the global policy arena” (UN-Habitat, 2015). UN-Habitat defines that public space can “contribute to sustainable urban development and improved quality of life” (Garau,2015-p.8), improving citizenship, economy, sustainability, green transport (walking,cyling), health, safety and social inclusion. Emphasis is given to the value of citizens’ participation while referring to the ‘commons’, although not acknowledged with the same term, and defending that communities should be involved in the “creation, design and management of public space” (Garau, 2015-p.82) through a “clear and transparent participatory processes with all interested stakeholders.“ (Charter of Public Space, 2015-par.18) Moreover, new models of public space regeneration emerging from collaboration between government, private sector and local communities develop the social capital, besides supporting new jobs and empowering residents with new skills. (Garau, 2015)
INCLUSION
CITIZENSHIP
ECONOMY
SAFETY
HEALTH
SUSTAINABILITY
Fig 14 - The benefits of public space, as outlined by UN-Habitat (2015)
Localism Act: Set as part of the Big Society agenda in 2011, the Localism Act acknowledges that public space can be a source for a variety of benefits, but does not refer to it as ‘urban commons’. It aims to outrage benefits to the community by giving them rights to bid on decisions already made by local authorities, setting the following community rights: (i) build; (ii) bid; (iii) challenge. The right to bid entitles communities to protect local assets, including public spaces.
(i) COMMUNITY RIGHT TO BID
(ii) COMMUNITY RIGHT TO BUILD
(iii) COMMUNITY RIGHT TO CHALLENGE
“gives community groups a fairer chance to save assets that are important to them.”
“allows local communities to undertake small-scale, site-specific, community-led developments.”
“ allows community groups, charities, social enterprises...to bid to run authority services where they believe they can do so differently and better. This may be the whole service or part of a service.”
Fig 15- Localism act rights (source: https://www.gov.uk/) 16
2.3 - PARTICIPATORY HANDS-ON APPROACHES
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Public Space as ‘Urban Commons’: ‘Tactical Urbanism’ (TU) (Lydon and Garcia, 2011) is an approach to regenerating public space initiated by citizens’ collectives with no formal support, but which has now been recognised as a formal urbanism process. TU relies on short span, low-cost, collective and DIY actions inspired by street artists. Garcia expressed in a few words this very daring approach by recommending to citizens: “Do not ask for permission; it is better to ask for forgiveness.” (Design & The City Conference - Amsterdam. April, 2016). Despite the disruptive element, it means to reintegrate bottom-up and top-down planning, for government to work more tactically (hands-on action) and citizens more strategically (policy and masterplans). inspiring
The approach adopted on the Open Works is literally open and tactical, based on the gradual development of next steps by a real time feedback that provides the awareness and contextualisation needed to proceed to the next stage.
STREET ART
TACTICAL URBANISM
contributing to
- Hands-on - Immediate results - Creativity engaging - Citizens collectives
Scaling-Up Participatory Processes: TU has a very local approach to urban regeneration, but ways to scale co-production have been explored between practitioners and local authorities. An example is Open Works, a collaborative neighbourhood regeneration being tested in Lambeth (London) by Civic Systems Lab, where community projects based on peer-to-peer (non-institutional) learning are taking place. Three elements are highlighted to scale participation: (i) feasibility of networked projects, (ii) inclusivity and diversity of co-production activities, and (iii) value creation, through peer-to-peer learning opportunities that represents the “co-creation of social, environmental and economic value.” (Britton et al, 2015-p.23)
- Hands-on - Immediate results - Creativity engaging
Fig.16 - Tactical Urbanism and its relationship to street art.
TU is based on a ‘build-measure-learn’ approach that allows testing possibilities before implementing permanent spatial change. Knowledge is developed from the doing and is intertwined in the organisation of the co-production process.
pro
ta
da
jec
t
BUILD
MEASURE
TACTICAL URBANISM
communities BOTTOM - UP
- artists - design firms
LEARN
ideas
- developers - entrepreneurs
TOP - DOWN government
Fig 18- Citizen to institutions different interfaces, and the approach adopted by Open Works highlighted. (source: Designed to Scale, 2015)
Government x Citizens : The biggest challenge to a collaborative participatory process is the interface between government and citizens and currently both “appear stuck, asking each other to do more and more to fill the growing gaps between service provision.“ (Britton et al, 2015-p.22)
Fig.17- Tactical Urbanism collaboration process and learning by doing. 17
Citizen’s Role: It is still unclear what the role of citizens is on co-production, “what is expected of him or her in ‘the new model’: a role as a volunteer, or as an employee, or employer in...say, a cooperative? Does the burden of caring for those dependent on care also lie with ‘active’ citizens – with a job – or only with ‘available’ citizens – without a job? Furthermore, there is confusion about the type of service and production that would qualify for the new model.” (Moor, 2013 - p.25)
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
DIY: hands-on action is a central element in participatory models proposed as an alternative to the passive ones set by the Big Society. A recent report (New Economy Foundation,2014) identifies that hands-on engagement can bring benefits on three levels, defined as “the triple challenge” (NEF, 2014-pg.6): (i) individual, (ii) collective and (iii) sustainability. All combined can support community development.
COLLABORATIVE PROCESS
AL DIV IN ‘new materialism’: fixing tools and reusing materials, minimising resource use
VE
TI
EC
LL
IDU
GOVERNMENT’S RESPOSIBILITY?
community empowerment: sharing, learning from each other (peer-to-peer), social capital
CO
CITIZEN’S ROLE?
wellbeing: sense of competence, new skills
social economy: based on collaboration and holistic sustainability
ENVIRONMENT (SUSTAINABILITY)
SERVICE PROVISION Fig 19 - What is the citizens’ role and the government’s responsibility in the coproduction model?
Empowerment: The Open Works is testing means to alter the inefficient participatory system operating in the UK, where “participation has been encouraged by top down interventions, and government and institutions have largely set the agenda and kept control...governments have struggled to convert their ‘empowerment’ into long term change through widespread participation... but the ambition is still strong.” (Britton et al, 2015 - p.22)
18
Fig 20 - “The Triple Challenge”, mitigated by DIY - sharing and learning skills (NEF, 2014)
Civic Economy: All levels combined create one more benefit: (iv) social economy, that starts from and supports social capital - the latter defined as “tangible assets [that] count for most in the daily lives of people: namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit.” (Hanifan, 1916)
Active Wellbeing: Hands-on activities support a dynamic model which defines that health and wellbeing cannot be delivered as a service, but by individuals. The value of DIY signals the danger of relying welfare state service provision, since citizens become passive recipients. Empowerment is not something that can be delivered; citizens must empower themselves, and what governments can do is support activities and infrastructure that provides the possibility to do so.
learn new skills
confidence and selfbelief increases
build aspirations and expectations around personal development
seek opportunities for education or employment
Fig 21- “The Pathway From Learning Skills to Education or Employment” (NEF, 2014 - p.38)
Co-producing services: “Co-production is about moving away from the traditional mind-set whereby people with needs - the sick, the unemployed, and the elderly - are ‘dealt with’ by professionals in a one-directional sense. Co-production not only recognises the right for everyone to have a voice in shaping how services are provided, but also that everyone has assets and expertise that can make that service provision more effective.“ (NEF, 2014 - p.48 )
DISCARD IT
SPEND MONEY UNSUSTAINABLE
CONSUMERISM
OLD TOOLS
FIX IT
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
DIRECT BENEFITS
INDIRECT BENEFITS
learning new skills learning practical skills
sharing practical skills
having / using new skills
sense of competence and self-esteem personal wellbeing
autonomy
saving money
gaining employability
relatedness
helping others
meeting people
trust and social cohesion social capital
new ethos: value of time contribution
civic engagement and prod-social behaviour bridging capital
Fig 23 - “The Hands-on communities model of how learning and sharing practical skills help to empower people and communities.” (NEF, 2014 - p.51)
Awareness: DIY hands-on activities raise awareness of possibilities for individual and collective development. They can support sustainability by “prosumerism or new materialism” (NEF,2014-p.17), defined as repurposing old tools instead of acquiring new ones. For it to develop into a circular economy “people need to have the skills to look after and repair the things they own, communities need to have networks to promote these skills...” (NEF, 2014 - p.17) Sharing skills and collectively repurposing objects can support collaboration networks and develop social capital, which is essential for community development.
LEARN PROSUMERISM SUSTAINABLE
Fig 22- The possibilities for old tools: consumerism or prosumerism. 19
LITERATURE REVIEW FINDINGS umbrella for the urban commons
The literature review explores the potential of public spaces becoming ‘urban commons’, not only addressing the failure of a centralised planning system but, more importantly, supporting citizens’ active participation on service provision while engaging with learning through doing. The umbrella for the urban commons consists of: collective governance, hands-on activities, public space repurposing and benefits shaping community development.
GOVERNANCE Collective
URBAN COMMONS
- Co-management - Partnership with government, volunteering and private sector to be defined if necessary by ‘commoners’
PUBLIC SPACE
ACTIVITIES
Repurposed
Hands-on
- Non-privatised
- Active engagement on producing goods or services
- Accessibility to explore new uses
- Active wellbeing
BENEFITS Community Development - Social capital - Learning through doing - Social economy - Environmental benefits
Fig.24: Gospel Oak Urban Commons 20
CASE STUDIES : co-production from hyper-local to city scale
Garrido Box Club -Brazil
Bridge Street - Ireland
Cantiere Barca - Italy
Remakery - UK
R-Urban - France
TaMaLaCa - Italy
Build a Better Block - USA
Esto no es un Solar - Spain
The following case studies are valuable because they repurpose underutilised public space as ‘urban commons’, with citizens active engagement through hands-on activities and driven by awareness on social responsibility. Co-production is considered both from an infrastructure and soft assets point of view (such as learning and social capital) and it also may vary in scale and typology, ranging from streets to urban blocks - but always capable of supporting a network of ‘commoners’. Case studies are presented from a smaller to a larger scale, starting with a flyover and ending with an entire city; from informality to overcoming top-down planning. Elements are extracted to create a toolkit for regenerating a London community, and will be presented further ahead in this document. Street Parties - UK
Lab Gov - Italy
Table 02 - Literature Review Overview
21
GARRIDO BOX CLUB
CO - PRODUCTION ELEMENTS
Nilson Garrido. São Paulo - Brazil
SPACE: underutilised area under flyover INITIAL AIM: provide social inclusion opportunities for marginalised groups of society by skills sharing LEARNING: discipline, self-drive and goals setting COLLABORATION: Nilson Garrido / later workshops between Architectural Association and Netherlands Architecture Institute Fig 26 : Motivational images under Viaduct Alcantara Machado.
RECYCLING: leftover space per se, second hand materials used for infrastructure development on workshop by AA+NAI SOCIAL REGENERATION: social capital via collective learning SPATIAL REGENERATION: revitalised area under flyover (can be used as a prototype)
Fig 25 : Box ring for training and pallettes for multiple uses.
Viaduto Alcantara Machado, located in the city of São Paulo, is one of the many areas shadowed by flyovers. It had absolutely no use until Nilson Garrido, former box champion, decided to occupy the space for a social project aimed at empowering deprived young people to be included in society with a renewed sense of self-worth. This was a project that fiercely raised the discussion about ‘informal’ revitalisation of ‘common’ spaces in São Paulo, but unfortunately, did not develop further because there was no formal support whatsoever and no network collaboration. Nonetheless, the project was not banned.
METHODOLOGY: informal occupation with basic infrastructure and necessary boxing tools and scarce furniture provision (sink, bookshelf and sofa); hands-on intervention on painted columns LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT: has not received formal investment but neither was it banned Fig 27: Box ring for training and pallettes for multiple uses.
INITIATIVE: informal
PARTICIPATION TACTIC: self-drive
LESSON LEARNED: informal public space regeneration is valuable to test limits, but if it does not receive support it cannot develop any further.
AWARENESS: the ‘commons’ can get activated by the willingness of one citizen.
Table 3: Garrido Box Club description.
SCALE / TYPOLOGY : flyover shadow 22
Fig.28 : Garrido demonstrating tools utility during AA/NAI workshop.
Table 4 : Evaluation of different elements in the regeneration process - Garrido
BRIDGE STREET
CO - PRODUCTION ELEMENTS
Studio Weave. Callan - Ireland
SPACE: underused street INITIAL AIM: re-imagining civic spaces with community through collaborative and hands-on planning LEARNING: art - painting, street furniture, chalkboards and games and activities at different levels of complexity to include people with different abilities COLLABORATION: private sector (studio weave / architects); city council; community; primary schools Fig.30: Community rediscovering play capacity of the street (www.studioweave.com)
RECYCLING: leftover wood used for street furniture SOCIAL REGENERATION: civic pride, social capital, learning SPATIAL REGENERATION: revitalised street and buildings through revived social dynamics
Fig.29 : Street before regeneration (www.studioweave.com)
The former unused street with lacking social dynamics was regenerated through an innovative process testing new prototypes for collaborative planning based on the arts. Workshops were developed with the community at large and their school children with the purpose of reimagining and producing spatial change working on elements and new behaviours that value and support social life. The community was empowered with active awareness of regeneration possibilities. The project culminated with the occupation of the street that become a stage for the performance of a mobile play that led the audience to rediscover underused spaces. Active art and active regeneration though active community
METHODOLOGY: hands-on art workshops (street furniture, faรงade painting and theatre) and peer-topeer learning for permanent and temporary interventions (architecture and performance)
Fig.31 : Perfomance taking place to rediscover the forgotten spaces of the street. (swww. studioweave.com)
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: revived and well used space, revived civic pride and social opportunities INITIATIVE: formal
LESSON LEARNED: art is a powerful tool that, with its static and fleeting elements, can develop dynamic regeneration processes engaging community , through its performance , to take active part in civic life active participants of civic life.
PARTICIPATION TACTIC: fun artistic process makes of participation an event AWARENESS: art is a soft and powerful element which brings compelling joy and conects people
Table 5: Bridge Street description.
SCALE / TYPOLOGY : open street
TIME FRAME: one -year closure of street to develop workshops, leading to permanent regeneration of the street. One- day theatre performance to collectively rediscover the unused street spaces and buildings
Fig.32 : Civic pride after the collaborative regeneration process. (www.studioweave.com)
Table 6 : Evaluation of different elements - regeneration Bridge Street
23
FRONTE DI LIBERAZIONE DEI PIZZINI E PIZZONI
CO - PRODUCTION ELEMENTS SPACE: streets dominated by the car
TaMaLaCa - Sassari - Italy
INITIAL AIM: restore the sense of collective urban ownership by promoting the ability of less privileged citizens to make intensified use of the city, based on the ‘capabilities approach’ LEARNING: collective making of street furniture via hands-on action, recognised as social infrastructure
Fig34 : Urban furniture as DIY activity. (http://www.tamalaca.uniss.it/)
COLLABORATION: Universita di Sassari, city council, citizens, primary school children, TaMaLaCa (architects and planners) RECYCLING: second-hands palettes reused to create street furniture SOCIAL REGENERATION: empowering children on learning and participating in urban development through play
Fig.33 : Public space disrupted by car infrastructure.
This project emerged out of the need to face a very common process occurring on cities of all sizes - the dominance of cars and its absorption of public life space. Reconquering public space by less privileged citizens is the main idea of this project, here taking place through collective playing. Children were driven to influence the betterment of space by reflecting on a possible legacy for children of the future. This reflection brought awareness about the impact of present actions on future opportunities. Civic awareness was the central drive of collaborative public space regeneration.
SPATIAL REGENERATION: public space as social arena - from car to people dominated spaces METHODOLOGY: collective DIY activities such as ground painting, urban furniture making and open discussions with the children Fig 35 : Children testing play possibilities on public spaces. (http://www.tamalaca.uniss.it/)
TIME FRAME: one day activities FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: enhanced awareness stimulating more active citizenship INITIATIVE: formal
LESSON LEARNED: the awareness of the impact of present actions on the future of cities and quality of life is valuable for stimulating active collaborative humanisation of public spaces. Awareness is key to participation.
PARTICIPATION TACTIC: possible legacy children can leave for children of the future AWARENESS: future impact of our actions today
Table 7: TaMaLaCa description.
SCALE / TYPOLOGY : street and public space network Fig36: Colletive discussion and action. (http://www.tamalaca.uniss.it/)
24
Table 8 : Evaluation of different elements - regeneration TaMaLaCa
R-URBAN
CO - PRODUCTION ELEMENTS
Public Works. Colombes - France
SPACE: plot formerly underused as car park INITIAL AIM: closing the gap between production and consumption of food, energy and daily tools to support resilient urban lifestyles LEARNING: allotment cultivation; energy production; cultural spaces; repurposing second-hand materials through workshops; co-production and co-management Fig 38 : Workshops space (r-urban.net)
COLLABORATION: aaa and Public Works (architects), City of Colombes, EC Life (European Commission) RECYCLING: second-hand materials repurposed on workshops; composting; rainwater reuse SOCIAL REGENERATION: empowerment and social capital generated through collective learning
Fig.37 : Process of regeneration starting to take place (r-urban.net)
R-Urban is set on a former parking lot area. The project focuses on diminishing the gap between production and consumption and transform the passive consumer into an active producer through a closed loop regeneration process. It supports a healthier lifestyle by varied hands-on activities based on sustainability: from allotments cultivation to composting and workshops where second hand materials are used to assemble tools needed for everyday life. A coffee shop run by the community and where the food cultivated is used to help support further development of R-Urban. It is part of a network of urban commons in Colombes, aimed at supporting resilient urban lifestyles.
SPATIAL REGENERATION: plot is part of a network of underused nearby areas reactivated as urban commons METHODOLOGY: closed-loop strategy within the plot itself and as an element of a wider urban multidisciplinary closed-loop (economy, housing, energy, food and mobility Fig 39 : Food growing (r-urban.net)
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: gradual impact of healthier eating habits and social opportunities for ‘commoners’ INITIATIVE: formal
LESSON LEARNED: to bridge the gap between production and consumption both strategies for collective governance and accessibility of public spaces must be seized. This is the significance and value of the urban commons.
PARTICIPATION TACTIC: social and economic active engagement supporting wellbeing AWARENESS: ‘rural’ re-contextualisation can support new models for sustainable urban life
Table 9: R-Urban Description.
SCALE / TYPOLOGY : one plot
TIME FRAME: four-year pilot over different urban sites
Fig.40 : Urban Commons network: closed-loop between production and consumption. (http://www.urbantactics.org/)
Table 10: Evaluation of different elements - regeneration R-Urban.
25
ESTO NO ES UN SOLAR
CO - PRODUCTION ELEMENTS
Zaragoza - Spain
SPACE: underused public spaces across the city, some targeted for real estate development INITIAL AIM: resolving parallel problems: high unemployment rate and abundant underused public spaces. The solution was regenerating the second by employing the former. LEARNING: infrastructure thought for children to experience learning on public space Fig.42 : Adapted plaza. (www.estonoesunsolar.es)
COLLABORATION: municipal housing office, community groups, architects and re-employed citizens. RECYCLING: reuse of a range of building materials that were being discarded, mostly second hand wood METHODOLOGY: collaboration and sustainable methods for co-creation of public spaces aimed at supporting different social activities
Fig.41 : Underused public spaces before regeneration (www.estonoesunsolar.es)
Zaragoza was struck the same time by by two problems: the abundance of underused public spaces as catalyst for anti-social behaviour, and an economic crisis that caused high unemployment. The solution for both problems was connecting them with a vision: employing citizens on a collaborative regeneration of public spaces. Both were given new meaning to impact on a socio-spatial regeneration. Public spaces are now used as civic spaces for learning and sustainable development. A glorious and witty regeneration, with problems becoming a solution that addressed development opportunities related to public space meaningful use and value acknowledgement.
SOCIAL REGENERATION: re-employment opportunities regeneration individual well being and supporting social life and civic pride SPATIAL REGENERATION: underused public spaces transformed into social arenas and learning spaces Fig.43 : Different adapted public spaces (www.estonoesunsolar.es)
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: enhanced life quality by collective use of public space, such as food production, learning, cultural, sports and social life opportunities INITIATIVE: formal
LESSON LEARNED: underused spaces can be connected to underused skills to convene new meaning to the process of regeneration. This adds social value to space and empowers citizens by their efforts supporting ongoing opportunities on urban dynamics.
PARTICIPATION TACTIC: engaging in a job that would provide civic pride and social opportunities AWARENESS: identifying that connecting two problems would support present and future development opportunities through public space
Table 11: Zaragoza description.
SCALE / TYPOLOGY : leftover plots around the city Fig.44 : Network of underused public spaces in Zaragoza (http://wearethecityheroes.wordpress.com)
26
TIME FRAME: 13 months
Table 12: Evaluation of different elements - regeneration Zaragoza.
CANTIERE BARCA
CO - PRODUCTION ELEMENTS
Turin - Italy
SPACE: underused public spaces and one building within housing estate INITIAL AIM: to regenerate the neighbourhood through collaborative learning and artistic processes LEARNING: carpentry skills COLLABORATION: anthropologists, activists, Piedmont City Council, Goethe Institute, Fondation de France, Compagnia di San Paolo, architects Fig.46 : Structure for social interaction (raumlabor.net)
METHODOLOGY: residents interviews led to aknowledgement of the need to create social opportunities. Primary school children took part in workshops during school hours to imagine new scenarios for their neighbourhood and create awareness of their power for that
Fig.45 : Cantiere Barca before intervention (raumlabor.net)
In a housing estate in the outskirts of Torino the lack of community cohesion and anti-social behaviour coincided with underused public spaces. Social scientists and designers gathered to propose a carpentry workshop on an undersued building as the cornerstone for a wider social-spatial regeneration. As the community learned new carpentry skills and built social capital, a meaningful process of collective regeneration started to take place. Handson making of structures for social life brought new meaning to space and residents, setting a ‘commonised’ appropriation of skills and space regeneration. Today the workshop is managed by the community and open to non-residents.
RECYCLING: reused second- hand wood
SOCIAL REGENERATION: social capital, learning SPATIAL REGENERATION: from one building to community and then neighbourhood public spaces TIME FRAME: three years from initial reserach to wider neighbourhood regeneration Fig.47 : Repurposed building. (raumlabor.net)
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: The space will be expandend as a Youth Centre with dress-making activities, seminars and meetings, aimed at cultural growth and further social transformation and inclusion linked to creativity INITIATIVE: formal
PARTICIPATION TACTIC: attractability of handson artistic activities support a channel for selfexpression
LESSON LEARNED: multi-disciplinary connections can heal urban and social wounds holistically and collaboratively. Creativity is key to participation. Table 13 : Cantiere Barca description.
AWARENESS: public space regeneration is fun when initiated by collective learning
SCALE / TYPOLOGY : building and neighbourhood space Fig.48 : Playing elements. (raumlabor.net)
Table 14: Evaluation of different elements - regeneration Cantiere Barca
27
REMAKERY
CO - PRODUCTION ELEMENTS
London - UK
SPACE: obsolete garages in housing estate INITIAL AIM: sustainable economy based on reusing waste; educate people and support new skills for better job opportunities while remaking people and space LEARNING: carpentry skills, recycling opportunties COLLABORATION: AFH (Architecture for Humanity, Lambeth council Fig.50 : Discarded material (remakery.org)
RECYCLING: discarded materials METHODOLOGY: community self-initiative to remake space (garages); remake waste materials (into furniture or useful tools); remake people (new skills) SOCIAL REGENERATION: learning aimed at new jobs opportunities
Fig.49 : Underused garage before regeneration (www.transitiontownbrixton.org)
Underused garages in a housing estate in Brixton were regenerated as a social enterprise. Remakery is based on the idea of recycling both materials and skills to empower the community in finding jobs in the arts and crafts sector. Second hand materials are given new meaning through carpentry making and become useful tools for hands-on learning. Around 200 tons of material such as metal, wood, electronics, paints and textiles are repurposed evey year (with 220 millions of tons every year discarded by the construction industry in London). Profits made in the project are reused for membership and social programmes targeting disadvantaged social groups.
SPATIAL REGENERATION: reactivated garages as a learning space and social enterprise TIME FRAME: still on-going FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: attracting more people to engage in the regenerated local economy Fig.51 : Assembled work (remakery.org)
LESSON LEARNED: reusing discarded material in support of a socio-spatial regeneration is valuable for holistic resilience and everyone benefits - environment, space, economy and, most importantly, people.
PARTICIPATION TACTIC: community-self driven project. Attracts people for its’ learning value and creativity element. AWARENESS: amount of discarded material can support social and creativity projects.
Table 15: Remakery description.
SCALE / TYPOLOGY : garages
28
INITIATIVE: formal
Fig.52 : Assembling work (remakery.org)
Table 16: Evaluation of different elements - regeneration Remakery
BUILD A BETTER BLOCK
CO - PRODUCTION ELEMENTS
Dallas - Texas
SPACE: urban block with underused public spaces INITIAL AIM: to demonstrate all the possibilities for neighbourhood transformation in one city block LEARNING: self-organisation of community groups for hands-on action. Learning how to do through the doing COLLABORATION: between citizens. Now used as formal prototype for regeneration globally with councils. Fig.54 : Strategy for tactical interventions ( betterblock.org)
RECYCLING: reusing second hand materials to create elements for social life, such as seating areas and painting cycling lanes METHODOLOGY: overcoming dissatisfaction with current planning methodologies and community self-engagement on collaborative public space regeneration
Fig.53 : Deserted streets. (usa.streetsblog.org)
Like many urban street scenarios, this neighbourhood in Dallas had many underused public spaces and lacked social opportunities. Unsatisfied with this situation neighbours organised themselves through an interdisciplinary skilled group on a hands-on regeneration of underused public spaces, local shops and the street itself. Within a weekend, they have brought life back into the block. The group was inspired by the work of street artists that contribute to different perception of social issues. This strategy started informally and was later adopted by authorities as a mean to test possibilities before investing in long-term solutions.
SOCIAL REGENERATION: social capital and citizens empowerment SPATIAL REGENERATION: public space as a living atelier and community as artists TIME FRAME: one weekend Fig.55 : Cycling lanes, green elements, stalls. A weekend of creativity. (betterblock.org)
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: hands-on regeneration used as a prototype being applied in different areas worldwide with formal municipalities support INITIATIVE: initially informal, became formalised upon recognition of its value
PARTICIPATION TACTIC: natural self-drive due to dissatisfaction with long-wait current operating planning processes
LESSON LEARNED: organisation for communal action can occur without formal support and become formalised later upon recognition.
AWARENESS: meaningful change can occur on short time spans while testing possibilities of what public space could become
Table 17: Better Block description.
SCALE / TYPOLOGY : urban block Fig.56 : Hands-on action on pedestrian infrastructure ( www.texasobserver.org)
Table 18: Evaluation of different elements - regeneration Better Block.
29
STREET EVENTS
CO - PRODUCTION ELEMENTS
Sustrans / London Play / Big Lunch London & Bristol - UK
SPACE: car dominated street and underused public spaces INITIAL AIM: to test new uses on the street and trigger social capital between neighbours to support further collective regeneration LEARNING: event organisation, communication between community, hands-on temporary interventions COLLABORATION: residents and organisations Fig.58: London Play Street (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/)
METHODOLOGY: temporary events to reimagining the street as a space for social life and play TIME FRAME: one-day events SOCIAL REGENERATION: social capital
Fig.57 : Car dominated streets (www.theguardian.com)
Street parties are temporary events that aim to create a new perception of public spaces and different organisations are offering their services for that matter. Regenerating the public space of the street collectively can be done during temporary community events to test how new uses would add value to public space. Street events encourage social capital and a new perception of space, which combined can influence citizens to pursue a more permanent regeneration in collaboration. Connecting people takes time, but a street party can impact big chance in communities’ social value, essential in collaborative approaches to public space regeneration.
SPATIAL REGENERATION: fleeting, but temporary change can trigger process for permanent change FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: possibility for discussing and implementing community regeneration schemes INITIATIVE: formal Fig.59 : London Play Street (http://www.londonplay.org.uk/)
PARTICIPATION TACTIC: fun event with food, music and play and an opportunity to meet neighbours AWARENESS: temporary activities can help reimagining the street as a civic space
LESSON LEARNED: Social capital is the most valuable element in community self-organisation to create collaborative strategies to regeneration.
Table 20: Evaluation of different elements - Street Party
Table 19: Street Party description.
SCALE / TYPOLOGY : street network Fig. 60 : Bristol Big Lunch (www.thebiglunch.com)
30
LAB GOV
CO - PRODUCTION ELEMENTS
Bologna - Italy
SPACE: from the streets of Bologna to the Italian Constitution
Laboratory for the Governance of the Commons
Fig.62 : The City as a Commons, poster (http://www.labgov.it/)
INITIAL AIM: a newly conceived local regulation on public collaboration for urban commons and collaborative governance, not only on behalf of citizens but with citizens LEARNING: ‘Active School Networks’ - informal education network aiming at commons development and maintenance. Horizontal governance with learning aimed at both citizens and government
Fig.63: Ideas for a common city (http://www.labgov.it/)
METHODOLOGY: learning platform, collaborative discussion and hands-on collective regeneration of underused public spaces and buildings aimed at creating a prototype for commons design and governance
Fig.61 : City of Bologna car dominated environment ( heplanetd.com)
Bologna is being envisioned as the ‘city of the commons’ and this has been set by Lab Gov (Laboratory for the Governance of the Commons) which relies on a interdisciplinary collaboration between public sector, private institutions, NGO’s and citizens. Lab Gov is a platform for educating new leaders on repurposing public spaces as common resources for communities, and what type of governance can take place to design and govern the city as a whole as an urban commons. Learning through experimentation aims at empowering citizens to become social designers for urban resilience.
COLLABORATION: Municipality, students, scholars, activists, NGOs, citizens, local businesses + LUISS International Center on Democracy and Democratization and Fordham Urban Law Center
TIME FRAME: temporary testing for permanent change, setting new standards for urban development SOCIAL REGENERATION: horizontal governance and citizens’ empowerment SPATIAL REGENERATION: ‘city of commons’ Fig.64: Citizens discussing on the city (http://www.labgov.it/)
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: ‘co-cities’ paradigm INITIATIVE: formalising the value within the ‘informal’ Table 22: Evaluation of different elements - Lab Gov.
LESSON LEARNED: Envisioning a whole city as an urban commons must be an experimental process.
PARTICIPATION TACTIC: opportunties for achieving better life quality
Table 21: Lab Gov description.
SCALE / TYPOLOGY : all the city
Fig.65 : Mapped ideas for a collaborative city (http://www.labgov.it/)
AWARENESS: the city belongs to and should be managed by every single citizen 31
CASE STUDIES
lessons learned & toolkit
Informal public space regeneration is powerful to test limits, but to develop further it must be supported by legal frameworks or networks collaboration.
NEED SUPPORTING NETWORKS
Performance engages people and can change place perception
PERFORMANCE MATTERS
Learning is a valuable tool for collaborative regeneration - it empowers people and creates community value.
LEARNING MATTERS
VALUABLE LEARNING: reusing dicarded material supports holistic resilience and benefits environment, space, economy and, most importantly, people.
REUSING WASTE
Garrido Box Club, São Paulo -Brazil
Bridge Street, Callan - Ireland
Cantiere Barca, Turin - Italy
Remakery, London - UK
The huge gap between production and consumption can be reversed by local co-production strategies while supporting healthier lifestyles, urban resilience and community cohesion.
Awareness of the impact of present actions on the future of cities is a valuable tool for engaging people in the humanisation of the environment.
The ‘lean approach’ within ‘tactical urbanism’ can inform regeneration better than long intitutionalised discussions.
Crisis can be valuable for rethinking current modes of operation being traditionally kept unchanged. Very often, connecting problems can be a solution itself.
AWARENESS
NETWORK OF COMMONS
R-Urban, Colombes - France
TaMaLaCa, Sassari - Italy
Connecting people and suggesting street uses is the first step to unlocking social capital and initiate collaborative and humanised street development.
Major collaboration from citizen to city government is the means to scaling up participation - still on trial but likely to succeed in Bologna.
SOCIAL CAPITAL
Street parties, London and Bristol - UK 32
TACTICAL URBANISM
Build a Better Block, Dallas - USA
CONNECTING THE DOTS
Esto no es un Solar, Zaragoza - Spain
MAJOR COLLABORATION
Lab Gov, Bologna - Italy
Table 23. Toolkit from case studies
HANDS-ON PUBLIC SPACE REGENERATION
3.CASE STUDIES FINDINGS
awareness and scalability
All case studies vary in scale, but they have an intensified communal approach to public space regeneration that supports awareness and learning. Knowledge is developed from the doing and is intertwined in the organisation of the co-production process. Case studies show that local public space regeneration through tactics can be prototyped on likely spaces across the city and inform new policy -making. On the other side, strategies for collaboration must include tactical elements of experimentation to empower citizens. The urban commons rely on both scales of co-existing and co-informing each other through the awareness of the city as networked spaces, people and resources that impact each other.
URBAN COMMONS m
n so
nd
e ep
d
e
su
pp
or
te
d
by
Case Studies: STRATEGY
Community Scale
City Scale
(active citizens’ participation)
(policies for collaboration and citizens’ empowerment)
Needs hands-on tactics to empower citizens.
o
st
ad
n
le
AWARENESS & LEARNING
- Sassari - Bologna - Zaragoza - Dallas - Bristol / London
di ffu se
TACTIC
ca
Act as a prototype to inform strategic public space commoning.
HANDS-ON ACTION
tb
(collaborative co-production of events, resources and services)
Case Studies: - São Paulo - Turin - Colombes - Callan - London (Remakery)
us
Fig. 66: Awareness and learning process intertwined within the commons.
33
The project is structured in two stages based on the site and strategy :
SITE 1
4.0 - PROJECT METHODOLOGY
Phase 1: Housing estate in Gospel Oak (GO). Hands-on public space regeneration
Community party
Site 1. Trial to organise a community party to create social capital and start a collaborative process for public space regeneration into ‘urban commons’ which failed. GOSPEL OAK URBAN COMMONS
Phase 2: Gospel Oak Neighbourhood. decision on
Failed Intent
Change of site and strategy. Review of Camden Council regeneration plan for GO - which intends to be collaborative but fails. A strategy is then proposed to create a collaborative process dependant on repurposing underused public space into ‘community commons.’
Understanding the meaning of the underused community public spaces within a wider planning context for the area
Extracting valuable elements from Camden plan
identified
SITE 2
Repurposing local public space as urban commons to address identified valuable elements of Camden Plan, by community empowerment
Plan/consultation document analysis
Camden Plan regeneration for Gospel Oak - consultation plan document aimed at community (passive) ‘participation’
(benefits for the community and at city level)
Positive critique on passive approach to participation Fig.67a: Project Phasing
34
4.1 - SITE 1: INITIAL INTENTION
Gospel Oak housing estate - Luxham and Waxham The ambitious intention of this project was to test a real collaborative public space regeneration on a housing estate within the deprived area of Gospel Oak, Borough of Camden. In this case, the underused public space could be a source for community development, gradually repurposed into ‘urban commons’. Despite initial involvement with the community and participation at residents’ meeting to propose a community party, where hands-on opportunities for public space regeneration would be tested while building social capital, the lack of interest of the community to engage in this opportunity hindered its possibility. Moreover, financial support from the VSU (Volunteering Sector Union, UCL - University College London) had been mobilised to provide catering and materials needed to paint the ground and hire yoga professors. All residents were asked to do was to help disseminating the event and participate. The reflections on the process and the process itself are presented next.
SITE 1 : failed
Step 1
Real Public Space Regeneration
COMMUNITY PUBLIC SPACE PARTY community organisation to:
To create social capital and test hands-on possibilities
Fig.67b : Intentional initial step for public space regeneration on Site 1. Fig.68 : Underused green public space between housing blocks. Missed opportunity but still potential to create a commonised space.
35
SITE INTRODUCTION AND INITIAL APPROACH
4.1.SITE ANALYSIS
Gospel Oak housing estate - Luxham and Waxham
THE REASON WHY Luxham and Vaxham housing estates stand between Southampton Road and Mansfield Road, amidst vast underused public spaces in Gospel Oak, the latter composed of many estates in the same condition. It is a very deprived community, and thus would benefit enormously from the engagement in the transformation of its local public spaces into ‘urban commons’.
1 2
1 - GOSPEAL OAK 2 - WEST HAMPSTEAD 3 - KENTISH TOWN 4 - CAMDEN TOWN 5 - KINGS CROSS 6 - EUSTON 7 - HOLBORN 8 - HIGHGATE
3 4
No definite ideas were envisioned for the type of ‘commons’ most appropriate, since the aim was to create a community party to test possibilities first. Social capital was envisioned as the first step for the community to bring ideas forward.
underused green public spaces
Nonetheless, there are clearly steps to overcome for participation to become a natural element of community dynamic.
housing blocks
SITE SWOT
5
Road
8
housing blocks
underused paved public space (parking)
STRENGHT: Widely available public spaces including green areas, paved surfaces and parking areas.
6 7 Borough of Camden.
WEAKNESS: Community public spaces are underused and residents barely know each other. Deprived community.
underused paved public space
OPPORTUNITY: Repurposing community public spaces as ‘urban commons’ with activities that would support community development. THREAT: Lack of understanding of the value of ‘urban commons’ and social capital hinders possibility for residents collaboration. Fig.69 : Site mapping and underground
36
Table.24 : SWOT Analysis Luxham & Waxham
mpton
London Boroughs.
Road
Southa
CAMDEN TOWN
Mansfield
Fig.70 : Luxham and Waxham Housing Estate sketeched plan (no scale)
Fig.71 : Underused green public space in between blocks
Fig.72 : Underused green public space and parking area
Fig.73 : Underused plaza
Fig.74 : Learning center shot
Fig.75 : Underused sidewalk and parking area
Fig.76 : Underused paved surface in between blocks
Fig.77 : Underused green public space in between blocks
Fig.78 : Underused paved surface amidst painted walls
Fig.79 : Failed collaborative allotments
Fig.80 : Underused parking area and garages
Fig.81 : Underused green public space in between blocks
Fig.82 : Some social activity in front of the housing blocks
Fig.83 : Paved surface being renovated by the council
Fig.84: Paved surface being renovated by the council
Fig.85 : Lacking vitality in front of housing blocks
Fig.86: Underused green and paved public space
37
4.1. INSIGHTS SITE 1
LUXHAM AND WAXHAM from intention to outcome (i) Intention Real collaborative regeneration of underused public spaces within housing estate. Community party would have been first step.
Fig.87a: underused public spaces in Luxham & Waxham.
(ii) Process
Community involvement through dialogue with residents and participation in residents’ meeting to introduce the idea of collaborative regeneration.
(iii) Outcome
Lack of enough interest of residents for hands-on intervention. Social capital building through community party will not be possible within the time framework of this project.
The participation issue Mike Farrent resides in Gospel Oak and voluntarily manages a community garden with two other residents. In a conversation about how community public spaces are used and cared for therein, it came out that most residents are not interested in actively participating in their management.
Community intended to create spaces for children to play.
(iv) Lessons Learned
(v) Further Enquiries
Community involvement that takes time and much effort - it is a project in itself. There are two options : (i) give up; (ii) try harder. Let us stick to the second!
This process has triggered further questions, the most striking being: how long does it take to get to the stage of communities willing to participate in collaborative regeneration?
(vi) Next Step Proposing a hands-on collaborative regeneration within Gospel Oak area, by adapting a regeneration plan by Camden Council, where participation is occurring indirectly through consultation, into an ‘active’ community regeneration plan.
MIKE’S OUTLOOK
- “People do not want to look after community spaces” - “After 40 years living here, there is no chance the council would create enough stimulus for the community to manage local public spaces. “ - “ The council employs people to manage the garden who have limited knowledge of gardening - so few residents do it themselves, always the same ones.” - “ Every Sunday we manage the gardens. It is not something that can be done once in a while.”
Table 25: Site 1 project process
38
Fig.87b: The issues with ‘commoning’
4.2 - PROJECT SITE 2: GOSPEL OAK NEIGHBOURHOOD
4.2. SITE 2 INTRODUCTION
expanded project site
Bridging between the academic concepts of the ‘urban commons’ and trying to implement it in a real life situation has challenged the idea that people are willing to be active participants in what could benefit their communities. Facing the fact that communities do not yet understand how public spaces could become valuable sources and resources, it became clear that there is one more step to be overcome before gradually creating a ‘commonised society’. This step is creating awareness. To contribute to awareness of commons’ value, the strategy for this project has been adapted to taking an existing plan by the Camden Council, that proposes the regeneration on the GO area, and repurposing it into a collaborative framework that makes public space as commons the cornerstone for regeneration. This map shows where site 1 sits in relationship to site 2, and the abundant non-built spaces amidst buildings - most of them underused public spaces.
Map Legend: SITE 1 SITE 2 EXISTING BUILDINGS
FIGURE GROUND PLAN 1:2500 Fig.88: Figure ground for project site 2 - Gospel Oak community.
39
Nonetheless, the Big Society participation model seems to still be deeply rooted in the planning process in the UK, based on a passive participation approach that does not acknowledge that real change comes from people being empowered to learn and drive community regeneration themselves. INDIRECT (PASSIVE) PARTICIPATION: Opinating on a consultation document. COUNCIL
COMMUNITY
CONSULTATION
defining what should be done and how it should be done. Mistakenly considering community opinion as power giving.
stating opinion, not changing any community relationhsip or driving need for individual empowerment
Fig.89a: Indirect participation model.
MAJOR ISSUES: Not only is the process of community participation being used uneffectively, but also there is a lack of recognition of the power of social capital. An example is that measures to increase ‘safety’ rely on building new housing to create constant surveillance, which, however, doesn’t prevent anti-social behaviour from taking place due to individual and collective social issues that remain undealt with. Most of the regeneration proposals in the plan lack recognition of space qualities being moulded by the community itself, and thus consider residents as recipients of ‘solutions’- rather than makers or active healers of social, spatial and economic issues. Fig.89b : Camden Council front page of consultation document.
40
Housing
Public Space
Safety
Accessibility
Community Provision
Jobs & Enterprise
Queens’ Crescent Market
Fig.90: Camden Plan priority areas.
In February 2016, the Camden Council (CC) distributed a consultation document to the Gospel Oak (GO) residents aiming to get feedback on how to better target the issues outlined as priority in the regeneration plan which is still in development. The plan addresses the following issues: housing, public space, safety, accessibility, community provision, jobs and enterprise. Clearly the area is very deprived and the need to include the community in the regeneration plan and make it meaningful is valued by the council.
4.2- SITE 2 CONTEXT CAMDEN COUNCILS’ GOSPEAL OAK REGENERATION PLAN PRIORITIES
CAMDEN COUNCILS’ GOSPEL OAK REGENERATION PLAN
4.2 - SITE 2 CONTEXT
The proposal will focus on three of the priorities set by the CC: public space, community provision and jobs & enterprise. The other priorities will not be ignored, but instead, resolved as a consequence of the development of these three key priorities (the only ‘priority’ that will be disregarded is ‘housing’). Public space is proposed as the central element of the active collaborative regeneration, being repurposed into urban commons to address directly ‘jobs & enterprise’ and ‘community provision’, while indirectly ‘safety’ and ‘accessibility’. This process aims to contribute to the creation of awareness of the value of public space and the power of the commons. HANDS-ON PARTICIPATION: Being an active participant of community regeneration, and being regenerated simultaneously.
community identifies opportunity to get connected and collaboratively drive meaningful change DIVIDED COMMUNITY
Direct participation: co-organisation & co-building, while co-benefitting ACTIVE COMMUNITY
ACTIVE REGENERATION
Public Space
Safety
Accessibility
Community Provision
Jobs & Enterprise
URBAN COMMONS
Queens’ Crescent Market Fig.91: Active participation model proposed.
Fig.92: Priorities for active participation model.
The project developed herein is a constructive critique to the passive participation model used in the UK, explicit in the Camden Plan consultation document. Despite its flaw, the plan has some interesting propositions, which will be explored through means of enlightened active community participation.
HANDS-ON REGENERATION PLAN PRIORITIES
PROPOSING A HANDS-ON ON REGENERATION PROCESS
41
THE MAIN PILLARS OF G.O. COLLABORATIVE REGENERATION
4.2. SITE 2 STRATEGY
Public Space has the potential to support social capital, which is the most important element of a new model for collaborative regeneration. It is not all that is needed to regenerate communities, but can help them finding solutions together. This project repurposes public spaces as urban commons in order to deliver benefits at various scales, supporting opportunities for community space, new jobs and enterprises and upbringing of Queens’ Crescent Market. By achieving this, safety is likely to arise and accessibility to increase due to social and spatial changes set to achieve the former goals.
PUBLIC SPACE AS URBAN COMMONS
queen’s crescent market
jobs & enterprise
community provision
accessibility (pedestrian friendly)
safety Fig.93 : Collaborative strategy for community regeneration.
42
CAMDEN REGENERATION PLAN ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY To contextualise what is being proposed by the CC plan for Gospel Oak a SWOT analysis (strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) is done for the key priorities addressed in this project (public space, community provision, jobs & enterprise). It aims at understanding the councils’ vision of what a collaboratively community regeneration should be. Valuable elements will be kept as part of the new plan herein proposed. Following the SWOT analysis, topics arisen through community interviewees will clarify the main issues that public space ‘commonisation’ can help address, clarifying needs and opportunities for GO. This knowledge combined, the toolkit from initial case studies analysis and the literature review definition of the ‘urban commons’, will inform an active community regeneration process.
CAMDEN PLAN FOR GO
SWOT ANALYSIS
public space
community provision
INFORMAL INTERVIEWS
COMMUNITY MEMBERS
TOOLKIT APPLICATION
PROJECT PROPOSAL
LITERATURE REVIEW & CASE STUDIES
jobs & enterprise Fig.94 : Project methodology.
43
CAMDEN REGENERATION PLAN ANALYSIS Public Space
S.W.O.T. Residents request: “Improve the quality of public open space so it meets the needs of local people and, if possible, increase the amount of usable public open space.” (Gospel Oak Area Consultation, 2016)
Propositions - food growing, community gardens, seating areas, landscaping, opening up spaces, defining public and private areas, enhanced surveillance.
Completed work new outdoor exercise facilities at Lismore Circus
Future development: action depending on residents’ response to current proposals
S - interest in food growing which could benefit the community ; considering community’s feedback for public space regeneration (secondary participation, but it shows intention of supporting community involvement) W - needs of the residents are emphasized but not clarified; not much diversity considered for different age groups; important areas being left out of the plan (ie. semi private green areas) O - public space as ‘urban commons’ to address community regeneration T - proposed housing on Gospel Oak Open Space would over-occupy valuable green spaces.
Table 26 : Camden Council proposal for public space regeneration
Table 27 : SWOT analysis for public space proposal in GO by CC.
Lismore Circus East
Lismore Circus West
1
2
ATTRACTIVE & WELCOMING
+ + STREET FURNITURE
PARK CHARACHTER
GREEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
Fig 95 : GO plan with public spaces aimed at regeneration by CC.
NEW HOMES
WALK THROUGH SPACE
+ CHANGE PITCHES
St. Martin’s Church BRING TOGETHER DISJOINTED SPACES
NO SCALE
44
+ PARK LIKE
STREETS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT
& CYCLE FRIENDLY
+
Gospel Oak Open Space
SITE PLAN
SITE BOUNDARY
PEDESTRIAN
FRONT DOORS FACING GREEN
5
PLANTING
+
Grafton Road
3
LEGEND:
+
+
Weddington Road
6
BIODIVERSITY
NEW ROUTES
IMPROVED PATHS
4
+
Fig. 96 : Images of improved public spaces by CC. (Gospel Oak Area Consultation, 2016)
Table. 28 : Changes suggested for each public space contemplated for regeneration by CC.
CAMDEN REGENERATION PLAN ANALYSIS Jobs & Enterprise
S.W.O.T.
Residents request: “Support local people to access training and jobs and create new opportunities for enterprise to flourish.“ (Gospel Oak Area Consultation, 2016)
W - strategy is not outlining community needs, so it is not clear what activities and spaces would be valuable to support business and training
Completed work workshops space for arts & crafts in local shops
Propositions - use underused garages for start-ups; get external grant funding for new enterprises.
S - occupation of underused basements and garages with workshops to offer training opportunities can activate the use of space through learning and empower the community
Future developmentidentify space for more workshops; support SME via GO Business Group
Table 29 : CC proposal for jobs & enterprise support.
O - identify what skills are available within the community and what skills are lacking to create a skill matching platform that can support peer-to-peer learning T - food shops in Queens Crescent threaten liveability of the food market. Diverse products must be offered amidst different traders so they can all attracts costumers. Table 30 : SWOT analysis for jobs & enterprise in GO by CC.
1- Bacton Low Rise: provision of employment floorspace.
2
2 - Waxham and Wendling: create workshops in vacant garages. 3 - Queen’s Crescent: create workshops aimed at new skills learning and business opportunities. 4 - Queen’s Crescent: support traders and identify bids for external funding. 5 - Queen’s Crescent: improve street environment to attract more traders. Table 31 : Suggested changes by CC in GO for jobs & enterprise by area
( zoomed-in area on next page analysis )
3 5 4
MAP LEGEND: OPPORTUNITY FOR EMPLOYMENT SITE PUBLIC SPACE IMPROVEMENT FOR MARKET FOOTAGE COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE TO BE IMPROVED
Fig 97a : GO plan with areas targeted for jobs & enterprise opportunities.
QUEENS CRESCENT MARKET & SHOPS
FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES
1 identify areas for training opportunities and local employment
identify areas for long-term and short-term business opportunities
support trade of locally produced products
identify opportunities to attract more visitors
Fig 97b : Opportunities identified by CC in GO for jobs & enterprise regeneration
45
CAMDEN REGENERATION PLAN ANALYSIS Queen’s Crescent - Shops and Market
S.W.O.T.
Residents request: “Widen the range and improve
S - pop-up use proposition is a strategy to give a chance to many people to test different uses for currently unused shops.
local shops, continue to support the market and improve the appearance of the street. ”
W - not addressing street regeneration in full depth and opportunities for green mobility and diminished car incidence, which would increase footfall.
(Gospel Oak Area Consultation, 2016)
Propositions - improve quality/range of local shops; support market improvement; enhance street appearance.
Completed work none yet.
O - make the street more pedestrian and cycle friendly, which would enhance opportunities for trading; make public space more attractive to increase footfall.
Future development occupy underused shops with popup uses decided by the community
T - anti social behaviour makes the street less attractive and must be considered in the regeneration strategy.
Table 32 : CC proposal for public space regeneration
Table 33 : SWOT analysis for public space proposal in GO by CC.
ZOOMED IN MAP
Bassett Street
QUEEN’S CRESCENT
Weddington Road
3
Alcroft Road
4
2
FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES
6 5
LEGEND :
t
rescen
sC Queen
Grafton Road
Malden Road
1
Fig 98 : Queens Crescent regeneration strategy by Camden Council.
identify a strategy to attract more visitors
create an evening economy by offering attractive activities
collaboration between businesses and designers to make the street more attractive
identifying bid for external funding for market traders
identify spaces for market expansion
make the street visually more attractive
Fig 99 : Opportunities identified by CC in GO for Queens Crescent regeneration
4
1 Fig 100 : Queens Crescent x Grafton Road
46
2 Fig101 : QC x Weddington Road
3 Fig102 : QC x Alcroft Road
4 Fig103 : QC x Bassett Street
5 Fig104 : QC flower stall
6 Fig105 : QC technology stall
Fig106 : QC Market: decaying market with potential to be regenerated through new activity and products offer.
47
48
COMMUNITY INTERVIEWEES findings and insights
The process of repurposing the Camden Council plan into a meaningful collaborative strategy started with an observation of how public spaces in GO were used. Then, engaging into conversations with residents and people working in the area contributed to insights on how to create a collaborative process to benefit diverse community needs.
Fig107 : interviewee working at food stall at QC Market
Fig 109 : interviewee working in fabric stall at QC Market
Fig108 : interviewee working at food stall at QC Market
Fig110 : Interviewee walking with her dog
49
4.2. INTERVIEWEES VALUABLE INSIGHTS NEW HOUSING: plans to add more housing blocks are threatening the green public spaces.
PUBLIC SPACE: although there are many in the area they are not well used - it is a matter of culture. ‘When I started to have coffee on my terrace, people who only used it to hang clothes realised that space could have a different use and started doing the same.‘ With public space it works the same, new uses must be gradually encouraged.
- Creating a new culture of use of public space can start with testing new uses which can inspire people to do the same. - The success of QC market as public space depends on a careful consideration between the type of product it offers in comparison to nearby shops. Diversity is key to keep the trade of all ongoing.
UNDERSTANDING OF THE AREA - Public spaces not only are underused but also underestimated. Camdens’ proposal to occupy one of the biggest green areas in GO with a new housing estate proves public space valued is not acknowledged - by the community and neither by the council.
ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR: ‘There is a lot of drug problem in the area, since Camden has an open door policy to addicts - they come for treatment but it does not work, so the area feels unsafe at times.‘
- Formal learning spaces, such as the library, are not much attractive. This signals to a need of more informal means for learning. - Anti-social behaviour in GO coincides with underuse of community public spaces. Table 34 : Interview 1 insights and understanding of GO area
LEFTOVER SPACES: The paved public spaces in between housing blocks are usually used just by passersby, not really for events.
Fig111 : Interview 1 findings
50
LIBRARY : residents do not make much use of the library, located on Queen’s Crescent.
QUEEN’S CRESCENT MARKET: Used to be one of the most popular in London, but when supermarkets invaded the area its attractiveness was blurred. Today quality is lower and there are fewer stalls.
Linn Melvin, resident for 35 years; works in architecture practice. & her adorable dog.
4.2. INTERVIEWEES
LICENSE: rigidity of license hinders possibility to test new merchandise.
DIVERSITY: lack of products’ diversity makes competition in the market worse, since more than one seller offers exactly the same products (ie. fashion stalls, food stalls)
PARKING: used to be free for street vendors, but it is not anymore.
LONG COMMUTE: lack of storage space makes it necessary to drive merchandise in an out. Storage space would allow traders to reach the market by public transport.
WORK ROUTINE: Yousaf sets his stall in different markets everyday, since it provides his living income.
VALUABLE INSIGHTS LEASE: rising price to secure a place on the market (either daily license or long term) makes it harder if vendors do not sell enough.
MARKET ADMINISTRATION: changed from council to community centre and back to council, but now with less benefits and support.
- Flexibility in license to test new products would benefit not only traders but also the liveability of the market. Not only diversity, but also flexibility is key. - Lack of social capital impacts on loss of merchandise. Creating opportunities for social capital would viabilise a more tranquil work routine and community. - Storage space to keep products within the area would benefit market traders for a diminished use of private transport.
UNDERSTANDING OF QC MARKET - One of the obstacles to regenerating the market is a big administration gap between who makes the market and who controls the market. This contradicts the logic of the ‘urban commons’, and so empowering traders to govern the market would allow them to benefit from it. This is valuable because traders depend on it for a living.
LACK OF SOCIAL CAPITAL: occasional disagreement between stall owners.
LOSS: thieves watching stalls, occurring in merchandise loss when traders leave their products unattended to use the toilet or buy food.
Table 35 : Interview 2 insights and understanding of QC
TRAFFIC: gates are sometimes open to car traffic even when the market is set, causing accidents and loss of merchandise.
Yousaf, bedding stall in QC market since 35 years.
Fig112 : Interview 2 findings
51
4.2. INTERVIEWEES
FRESH FOOD: the market was specialised on fresh food and always busy, but when the Indian shops opened on QC offering the same products its popularity was lost.
HISTORY: market since 1930’s, before WW2.
VALUABLE INSIGHTS - A community is not only made by its r esidents, but also the people who participate in the daily life of the area - such as traders. REGENERATION: there have always been plans to regenerate the area but not much is ever done.
- Political disbelief is amidst QC community and reinforces the need for the community itself to lead a regeneration plan. This can be seen as an opportunity.
VALUABLE INSIGHTS ATTRACTIVENESS: the few QC market costumers are local and there is not enough attractability to bring people from afar.
UNDERSTANDING OF QC MARKET
- QC market could become specialised in a new product which is offered only in GO. This would provide it with a unique character, enough to attract footage and enhance its social dynamics. - The lack of diversity of products offered between stalls and local shops creates conflict and a lack of economic and social dynamic in the area. Collaboration between both would benefit traders and enhance GO liveability. Table 37 : Interview 4 insights and understanding of local economy
- There is historical value in QC market. Table 36 : Interview 3 insights and understanding of QC
TRANSPORT: commutes to the area to trade and has never lived in Gospel Oak
Fig113 : Interview 3 findings
52
Lawrence, trader since 25 years
Jack and Steve, working in the fruit stall since 25 years (the only one left!) Fig114 : Interview 4 findings
4.2. INTERVIEWEES
VALUABLE INSIGHTS
NIGHT TIME ECONOMY: during the evening just a few shops are open and the street is mostly empty.
- There is a serious issue of liveability in GO, and new activities must be proposed to reactive its’ social and economic dynamic. - Safety depends on the social group people belong to. For men, areas usually feel safer. Within one community different perceptions tend to emerge.
UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOCIAL DYNAMIC
PHOTO: ‘Of course you can take a photo, but not with me in it.’
LIVEABILITY: usually not much happens on the street and not even the market brings much life to the area.
SAFETY: feels safe in the area at all times.
- The use uf public space is valued by some institutions within GO area, as exemplified by ‘The Dome’. Table 37 : Interview 5 insights and understanding of social dynamic
THE DOME: space for kids; organises football tournaments and park trips, between other activities.
FRIENDLINESS: people are friendly, neighbours greet each other.
Kamel, working in a coffee shop on QC. Fig115 : Interview 5 findings
53
STRATEGY FOR PUBLIC SPACE REPURPOSING & GO COMMUNITY REGENERATION based on combined needs
Issues and potentials acknowledged in the plan by Camden Council and arisen during the interviews are taken into account when developing a project strategy that takes public space as the core element for community development. The toolkit extracted from the literature review and case studies was used to illuminate the potential to do so, with four main elements used to embrace all others. This table shows how the different streams are combined to create the strategy for the project.
Camden Council
Community
Main Toolkit Elements
POSSIBILITIES
POSSIBILITIES
POSSIBILITIES
- Activating garages as community and workshops spaces.
- Suggesting new uses in public spaces to activate social dynamic.
- Learning
- Improving QC to attract more traders.
- Using public space as a learning environment through playing.
- Investing in the night time economy.
- Identifying alternative spaces for learning that are more dynamic than the library or other formal environments.
- Creating start-up spaces in uderused shops owned by the council. - Support trade of locally produced products on QC market. - Identify areas for market expansion, new businesses and training. - Identify opportunities to address anti-social behaviour through activities that support social capital.
- Testing new products on QC market by setting a more flexible license. - Limiting car access on QC during market hours and beyond. - Creating activities that address the issue of anti social behaviour and drug use.
While engaging in handson processes of making, testing and performing. - Awareness For the community on their power to lead change and on the value of public space for community development. - Social Capital Through learning and collaborating on community and public space regeneration. - Collaboration Between community, council, practitioners, private institutions and volunteering sector.
Strategy
Circus arts is the theme chosen to drive Gospel Oak regeneration, because of the different elements that are intertwined in its framework. It is maybe the most diverse art since it has performatic and visual elements, solo and collaborative activities and its dynamic invites the audience to participate in the spectacle as active participants. Circus workshops will be set to reactivate garages in GO providing a learning activity for residents. On a second stage, the skills will be used to regenerate public space, and to drive a local economy based on the arts and local production of circus tools to regenerate the market. . Public space is the element that allows this narrative to unfold. Table 39: Combined elements informing GO regeneration strategy
54
UNDERUSED PUBLIC SPACES
4.2. INTRODUCTION SITE 2
green areas, paved spaces and streets The many issues within Gospel Oak as outlined by the community and acknowledged by Camden Council coincide with the underuse of public spaces within the area. Repurposing these spaces meaningfully can transform them both into sources and resources for community development.
Map Legend: SITE GREEN AREAS PAVED SPACES STREETS GARAGES
UNDERUSED PUBLIC SPACES 1:2500 Fig116: Underused public spaces typology
55
UNDERUSED PUBLIC SPACE TYPOLOGY and activities to repurposing them collectively The different typologies of local public spaces are outlined, corresponding to activities that will take place within them to support a collaborative regeneration of Gospel Oak. Garages are set as the ‘production’ spaces, where things and learning are produced. Green areas, paved surfaces and streets are the ‘reflection’ spaces, where activities learned on the workshops will be applied to repurpose public space and drive a social economy. This process is supported by three elements: (i) perform, (ii) make and (iii) discuss.
(i) GARAGES
(i) WORKSHOPS (i) COMMUNITY SPACE
production space
(iii) GREEN AREAS
(iii) CIRCUS PERFORMANCE
reflection space
(iv) PAVED SPACES
(iv) CIRCUS PERFORMANCE (iv) CIRCUS MARKET
reflection space
(v) STREETS
(v) CIRCUS MARKET
reflection space Fig117 : Underused public space typology and activities for repurposing them collectively.
56
REPURPOSING PUBLIC SPACE THROUGH LEARNING from workshops to public spaces
The initial step for community regeneration is activating underused garages through circus activities and discussions on the future of GO. Workshops would depend on the presence of initiators: for the visual arts & performance workshop, circus artists would be volunteering; for the maker workshops, volunteer artists will be giving guidance; and for the discussion workshops, council representatives and practitioners will help lead the awareness on how to unlock the value of public space for community development. The learning will empower residents individually and collectively. This strategy is aimed at nurturing public space as ‘urban commons’ in order to achieve three major objectives: community public space repurposing, driving a social economy and enhancing learning and job opportunities.
DISCUSS
WORKSHOPS
MAKE
PERFORM
PUBLIC SPACE REPURPOSING
SOCIAL ECONOMY
LEARNING & JOB OPPORTUNITIES
GREEN AREAS, PAVED AREAS, STREETS
QC MARKET
CULTURAL FIELD
Fig.118: Strategy for supporting the ‘urban commons’ on community public spaces .
57
TOOLKIT APPLICATION FOR STEP 1 - WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES Part of the toolkit extracted from the case studies review informs the initial step for the GO collaborative regeneration. The other elements will be integrated into the next steps.
Workshops will be supported by the council and with practitioners guidance to unfold the potential of Gospel Oak community development.
Learning performance & visual arts circus activities, engaging on hands-on circus tool production and learning about possibilities for community development during workshops.
SUPPORTING NETWORKS
LEARNING
Awareness is intertwined in the learning process. Discovering new possibilities for physical movement engaging with art will lead to developing emotional intelligence. Second-hand objects repurposing will support environmental awareness while discussion workshops bring awareness on the collaborative power to shape GO future. AWARENESS
Workshops are also means to connect the community through meaningful activites and insightful discussion and empowering activities. Social capital becomes possible when people are connected by shared needs to unveil individual and collaborative potentials.
SOCIAL CAPITAL
Using second-hand materials for producing circus tools during maker workshop and repurposing objects that no longer have any use.
REUSING WASTE
The underused public spaces can be connected to the learning needs to address issues like anti-social behaviour and decaying local economy. Two problems make one solution.
CONNECTING THE DOTS
Support of the council on the collaborative regeneration process in GO is of paramount value in defining a new approach to participation, where authorities encourage communities to drive the change while reassuring support will be given when needed. MAJOR COLLABORATION Fig 119 : Toolkit application Step 1
58
THEORY OF CHANGE - STEP 1 kick-starting the ‘urban commons’ CURRENT SITUATION
REACTIVATING G.O. UNDERUSED GARAGES WITH DIVERSE COMMUNITY (CO) WORKSHOPS
- Underused garages - Lack of community spaces - Anti-social behaviour
ACTIVITIES:
MAKE
DISCUSS
Trained circus artists teach CO performatic and visual art circus activities
Makers teach CO hands-on techniques to manufacture arts & crafts products by using second-hand materials
Practitioners and concil representatives instigate collective discussions with CO to reflect on the future of G.O
CO is motivated to practice exercise
RE become aware of new uses for second-hand materials
CO start to think about a better future for GO
EXERCISE
RE have the opportunitiy to get to know each other
ASSUMPTIONS:
CO learnS hands-on arts & craft skills
CO learns performative circus skills
INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES:
CO has improved wellbeing
CO becomes aware of its power to change things
CO recycles second-hand materials CO unlocks creativity and develop emotional intelligence by engaging with art
STEP 2 CO start to bring forward ideas for collective change
INTENDED OUTCOME
SOCIAL CAPITAL Social capital results from CO members constantly meeting each other
FINAL GOALS:
SKILLS & AWARENESS CO gains individual skills and enhanced awareness on how to collaboratively drive community development to improve GO area
Fig120 : Theory of change Step 1
- Reactivate garages as community and learning spaces through meaningful activities that empower the community and create social capital. - Provide the framework for step 2
ACTIVE INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT 59
GARAGES AS WORKSHOPS - PRODUCTION SPACE Learning space & recycling centre -
Workshops and learning spaces are proposed on the underused garages within GO. They are based on three activities: learning circus arts, both performance and visual; produce circus tools, with second hand materials; discussing the future of Gospel Oak between community members, council representatives and practitioners, stimulating and developing new ideas for collaborative regeneration.
REACTIVATE
WORKSHOPS
underused garages into workshops and community space
LEARN
MAKE
Circus Activities :
Circus Tools:
- performance arts - visual arts
- with second-hand material
Fig121 : Underused garages and lack of social life on street.
Fig122a: Underused garages on Southampton Road.
DISCUSS Gospel Oak’s Future: - community - public spaces Fig123 : Workshop Activities
60
Fig122b : Underused garages on Southampton Road.
WORKSHOP 1 : CIRCUS ACTIVITIES performance and visual arts
The circus workshop aims at empowering the community to learn new skills that will enhance their creative capabilities, support wellbeing and drive job opportunities. Well-being happens both for the benefits of physical exercise and the opportunity to meet new people, which on a regular basis, sustains social capital. Activities are based on two streams: performance arts and visual arts. On the next regeneration step, gained skills will be used to repurpose public spaces through collaborative tactics.
PERFORMANCE CIRCUS
DANCE
JUGGLERY
TIGHTROPE
MUSIC
THEATRE + CLOWN
ACROBACY
AERIAL TISSUE
UNICYCLE
Fig 124 : Acrobatic circus (http-::circus-london.co.uk)
Fig 125 : Acrobatic cicus (http-::www.victorgauna.com)
Fig 127 : Circus costume design (http-::www.risefeed.com)
Fig 128 : Circus lighting (http-::www.cssd.ac.uk)
Fig 126 : Acrobatic circus (http::www.itworldcanada.com)
VISUAL CIRCUS
MAKE UP
SET DESIGN
COSTUME DESIGN
LIGHTING
PAINT Fig 129 : Circus set design (http-::www.aroundthetownchicago.com)
61
WORKSHOP 2 : MAKING CIRCUS TOOLS recycled creativity
Making circus tools with second-hand materials is a way to engage the community on hands-on activities while supporting sustainability, benefitting the maker and the environment. All the waste generated on the area, mostly on Queens Crescent market days, and materials brought by residents, will be used to create new tools for setting circus activities, from small presentations to large productions. Non-residents and private companies can also donate materials.
RECYCLED CIRCUS TOOLS
JUGGLING BALLS
POI
PLATES
JUGGLING CLUBS
Fig 131 : Waste from Queens Crescent market.
AERIAL TISSUE
MUSICAL
INSTRUMENTS
UNICYCLE
Fig 130 : Circus Tools
HULA HOOPS
62
Fig 132 :More waste from Queens Crescent market.
WORKSHOP 3 : DISUSSING G.O. FUTURE
collaborative reflection on public spaces and community regeneration Community interviewees, with valuable insights to be taken from all, outlined many issues. Nonetheless, they were keener on complaining than acknowledging the potential for change. The discussion workshops will unlock the hidden treasures that are personal skills, collective action and underused public spaces. It will happen through collaboration between the Camden Council, GO community and urban practitioners. Getting all different expertise and levels of power together will unveil the potential for community driven regeneration, since it will help understand what part each one can play - which would help all three participants equally. It is a live empowerment process that occurs through mutual capability awareness. It will be encouraged for ideas to be expressed graphically and through models, making of it also an artistic workshop.
URBAN PRACTITIONERS
POTENTIAL
CAMDEN COUNCIL
FUTURE ?
COMMUNITY: residents and traders
ISSUES ISSUES Fig133 : Workshop on discussion about the future of G.O. community development and underused public spaces, process of engagement.
63
TOOLKIT APPLICATION - STEP 2 The tools applied on Step 1 will gain more complexity on Step 2, while all other tools are introduced to further support community development by gradually repurposing underused public spaces as ‘urban commons’. Besides the support of council, practitioners and circus experts for workshops, Step 2 will require the support of other networks to repurposing local public space collaboratively.
NEED SUPPORTING NETWORKS
The different repurposed public spaces will create a network of GO urban commons, with acitivities ranging from indoor workshops to outdoor training and trading of locally made circus tools.
NETWORK OF COMMONS
As social capital (SC) enhances, opportunities for community development can develop further and with more complexity. SC can also expand beyond community members and embrace visitors who can passively or actively participate in the performatic circus environment. SOCIAL CAPITAL
Public space will be a source for training circus skills while reactivating the social dynamic of GO underused spaces to offer alternative forms of culture to the wider public. Training will benefit both ‘performers’ and visitors. PERFORMANCE MATTERS
Awareness on how public space can be used on different ways through the gained skills to empower the community will be stimulated through the use and hands-on repurposing of public space for training and trading. The community will become aware of its individual and collective power by releasing the inner artist within. AWARENESS
The learning process through hands-on and practical activities will be extended from workshops to community underused public spaces, with the community using tactics to adapt it to support circus training and hand-made tools trading. LEARNING MATTERS
As the community masters skills on transforming second-hand material into circus tools, a higher diversity of materials can be introduced on the workshop, to aditionally make structures for social interaction and learning, like street furniture and ‘little free libraries.’ REUSING WASTE
The learning process through hands-on and practical activities will be extended from workshops to community underused public spaces, with the community using tactics to adapt public spaces to support circus training and trading of hand-made tools.
The mastered skills can now help address further problems with available resources. Market stalls which are already available on the area will be set for circus tools trading and public space becomes a source for training and reactivating community social life.
TACTICAL URBANISM
CONNECTING THE DOTS
Further collaboration will be needed to repurposing underused public spaces. Possible institutions will be defined by the community, following on the recognition of the aims and needs which will be revealed during the awareness emergent from testing new possibilities. MAJOR COLLABORATION Table 40 : Toolkit application Step 2
64
THEORY OF CHANGE - STEP 2
expanding activities towards GO public space CURRENT SITUATION
EXPANDING THE ACTIVITIES NURTURED ON STEP 1 TOWARDS PUBLIC SPACE
- Underused community public spaces - Lack of acknowledgement of the value of community public space
ACTIVITIES:
TRADE
OCCUPY
CO sets market stalls on underused public spaces & QC market to trade crafts made on workshops and revitalise QC market
Outdoor training of circus with CO meaningfully occupying underused community public space with performance
TEST CO uses tactical urbanism strategies to test different alternatives on underused community public spaces
CO understands what are the issues with their public spaces that need to be adapted to support aimed activities of outdoor circus training, trading and other identified meaningful uses
ASSUMPTIONS:
STEP 3 COLLECTIVE PLAN
CO collectively decides on a plan for community public space regeneration and start getting organised to achieve the aimed changes
EXTERNAL COLLABORATION
CO collectively decides what needs external support for change making, such as grant funding and second-hand material donation, and set collaboration with private sector and local authority (Camden Council) to achieve it
INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES:
FINAL GOALS:
ONLINE SKILL PLATFORM CO creates online platform for skill sharing aimed at filling the gap of needed skills for collective public space regeneration and community development
PERFORMANCE
PERSONAL SKILLS
ARTS & CRAFTS
CO uses performance skills to regenerate community public space social dynamic
CO uses personal skills to contribute to community public space regeneration
CO uses arts & crafts skills to artistically & collaboratively regenerate community public space
INTENDED OUTCOME
- Reactivate community underused public spaces to fit the needs identified by the community as important to drive local development - Awareness of the value of community public space - Provide the framework for step 3
COLLECTIVE COMMUNITY PUBLIC SPACE REGENERATION
Table 41 : Theory of change Step 2
INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT 65
STEP 2 - SKILLS REFLECTING ON PUBLIC SPACES activities learned on workshops applied on public space
Step 2 is about applying the skills learned on the workshops to repurpose public space, through performance and visual art skills based upon the reflection encouraged on the ‘discussion’ workshop. Circus performance can be set on the natural environment, with trees where aerial fabric and lycra can be hung and tight ropes set. Outdoor training will enhance the expertise of residents while animating the social life of underused public spaces, attracting viewers and making of Gospel Oak a live art neighbourhood. Locally hand-made circus tools will be sold on Queens Crescent market to reactivate its attraction and bring new life to the street. All revenue will be used on community projects to support a social economy. Both training and the market will be occurring at different times of the day, and so GO night time activity will be brought to life. Circus lovers from all over London will be invited to participate in reanimating the Gospel Oak public spaces, which will become a space for discussion and practice of the arts, providing alternative spaces for culture which are open to everyone.
Fig.136: Underused paved public space
Fig.134: Performatic arts.
Fig.137: Underused green public space
The community, to upkeep the best environment for circus training and culture dissemination, will manage the public spaces.
Fig.135: Performatic arts.
66
Fig.138: Underused street & decaying market - Queens Crescent
REACTIVATED GARAGES & PUBLIC SPACE REPURPOSING ‘production spaces’
The garages within housing estates empower citizens for learning new skills which will lead to the repurposing of underused public spaces to support community development on the long-term. Public space becomes reanimated by the lively performance of circus, with the community acting as street artists and testing new means to recreate the space.
The natural environment can support hanging elements such as aerial tissue.
Circus: from garages to underused community public spaces.
Fig.139: Performatic arts being practised on the streets of Gospel Oak, adjacent to the garages where their training had started on phase 1.
67
GREEN SPACES ‘reflective spaces’
natural environment supporting circus performance
circus market based on secondhand and locally made tools that support a social economy
reanimated social and cultural life
Learning merges with training and performance while attracting outsiders to participate passively or actively in the repurposing of community public spaces. The market will be given new meaning with locally made circus tools that support the recycling of secondhand materials and create a social economy based on the arts & crafts. Fig.140: Performatic arts on green spaces of Gospel Oak in parallel to circus market.
68
OUTDOOR PAVED SPACES ‘reflective spaces’
children will also be encouraged to learn on public space
The collective repurposing of public space as a learning environment will be mindful of children as likely active participants. Learning structures such as ‘little free libraries’ will be made on ‘recycling’ workshop and offered to support an informal outdoor learning environment.
Tactical painting on the ground with hopscotch and other games will support opportunities for playing.
Fig.141: Ground painting and little free libraries support informal learning on public space.
69
STREETS - QUEENS CRESCENT ‘reflective spaces’
Tactical interventions will be tested to improve the market environment both for current traders and new community stalls offering locally hand-made circus tools. The street will also be a performance environment with live music and other circus activities, attracting more footfall, which will benefit the social economy while artists develop and showcase their skills. Live music performance: from workshops to public space .
Cement tiles on the sidewalk create a joyful public space .
Tactical interventions will test possibilities for a more pedestrian and cycle friendly street . Fig.142: Repurposing Queens’ Crescent.
70
G.O. ONLINE SKILL SHARING PLATFORM
tools exchange, books borrowing, events dissemination and responsibility share An online skill-sharing platform will allow the process of public space regeneration and community development to be accelerated. The Gospel Oak skill-sharing platform will be a space for neighbours to organise activities within their neighbourhood: from circus presentations to booking workshop spaces and advertising books for exchange, stating available materials for recycling to the makers workshop and skills to offered to the community. The online platform will provide a space to match the needs, enabling peer-to-peer support and community development.
skills community members can offer
TO GIVE
SKILLS I CAN OFFER
MATERIALS I HAVE FOR RECYCLING
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN
WORKSHOPS I WISH TO ATTEND
BOOKS I WANT TO GIVE
SPARE TIME I HAVE
BOOKS I WANT TO GET
TIMES I NEED HELP
ONLINE SKILL SHARING PLATFORM
TO GET
skills community members need
Fig.143: Gospel Oak Online exchange platform
71
THEORY OF CHANGE - STEP 3
jobs opportunities & community enterprise CIRCUS TRAINING ON COMMUNITY PUBLIC SPACE
CURRENT SITUATION
- Opportunity for community to use new skills beyond community space
After collaborative regeneration to meet community needs, CO starts using local public spaces for training and to showcase their new skills while reactivating a positive dynamic to public space, based on the arts
IMPROVED SKILLS
AWARENESS
CO masters circus skills by constant training
ACTIVITIES:
CO becomes aware of the value of public space to supporting meaningful activities and community development
CO hs new organisational and cultural skills
EMPOWEREMENT CO is aware of individual and collective power to drive change and feels an individual sense of achievement
ASSUMPTIONS: CO is qualified for new job opportunities CO get new jobs or become freelancer on the cultural field
INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES:
CO keeps using community public space for training and make of it an environment of free access to circus culture CO upkeeps and manages community public space
FINAL GOALS:
SOCIAL ENTEPRISE / COMMUNITY CO-OPERATIVE CO creates a social enteprise based on the arts to drive community development and contribute to public space cultural scene (street art). Revenue is set by two streams:
CIRCUS SPECTACLE
CIRCUS MARKET
CO identifies collaboration with private venues to perform spectacles and get revenue to drive further community projects
CO makes of Queens Crescent market a circus specialised destination. Revenue from selling locally made circus tools on workshops is used for community projects.
SOCIAL ECONOMY
INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT BY MEANINGFUL USE AND GOVERNANCE OF PUBLIC SPACE
URBAN COMMONS Table 42 : Theory of change Step 3
72
GOSPEL OAK PUBLIC SPACE AS URBAN COMMONS, BASED ON THE ARTS
URBAN COMMONS INTENDED OUTCOME
- Make of community public spaces a network of ‘urban commons’ - Empower residents individually and collectively to drive long-term community development and support employment opportunities - Offer culture for free on community public space while reactivating public space dynamic
GOSPEL OAK SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRUCTURE awakening the ‘commoners’
Upon local public spaces’ value unveiling throughout community empowerment processes, it becomes clear that the upkeep is a condition for further development. A social enterprise is the framework through which public spaces as ‘urban commons’ will be sustained. Gospel Oak social enterprise structure is presented here, based on the framework provided by ‘co-operative UK’. (http://www.uk.coop/) AIMS
(What will your co-operative do?)
Gospel Oak co-operative will upkeep and regenerate local public spaces to support GO community development. It will also contribute to filling the gap in the UK service provision of public space, culture, and sustainability (recycling).
COMMUNITY LEVEL : Collective and Individual A social economy, based on (i) trading hand-made recycled circus tools; and (ii) setting circus spectacles to be performed by community members. Revenue of both will be used for GO community projects to address issues identified by the community in collaboration with local authorities and urban practitioner, aimed at (iii) supporting collaborative planning. (iv) On the individual level, the co-operative will connect community members with circus companies to link local skills to the circus industry, providing job opportunities and supporting the development of the cultural field.
WHO & WHAT FOR?
FINANCIAL STRATEGY
(Who will be involved and who is the co-operative for?) Gospel Oak community will lead the co-operative to provide (i) local community development and (ii) provision of public space, culture and recycling both for the community and to all citizens. Second-hand material donation will be accepted from industries, recycling centres and individuals. It will also provide outsiders the opportunity to access culture for free within Gospel Oak public spaces.
Revenue will be set by selling circus tools in Queens Crescent Market, located within the Gospel Oak area, and on setting circus spectacles on private venues. Venues can either be donated for spectacle times or be rented with GO co-operative funds. Crowdfunding and art grants will also be seized.
Fig.144: Gospel Oak co-operative structure.
Fig.145: Gospel Oak Network of Urban Commons driving social enterprise.
73
STEP 3 - GOSPEL OAK URBAN COMMONS Every ‘urban common’ is based around specific goals set by commoners’ needs, with variations on the four underlying elements that are essential for the support of its structure. Gospel Oak Urban Commons is set around not only one, but also a varied typology of local public spaces through a network of commons that support different types of activities beneath the umbrella of circus arts. It is not an end but a means to achieve community development, which transcends the space that supports its empowerment. Thus, despite the very local scale of the commons, it has the power to address issues that transcend not only its space but also time, creating a structure that, if well ‘commoned’, will benefit generations to come.
GOVERNANCE Collective Social Enterprise Every decision to be made by community members, considering collaboration with private sector and local authorities when appropriate
PUBLIC SPACE
ACTIVITIES Hands-on
- Circus performance & handmade tools
- Garages - Green areas - Paved areas (plazas) - Streets
- Testing changes for community development on workshops and gradually on public space
BENEFITS - Social capital - Learning through doing - Social economy
Fig.146: Gospel Oak Urban Commons structure
74
ability of the ‘commons’ to tackle different issues how the plans initially set by Camden for GO are achieved
By repurposing underused public space into ‘urban commons’, all of the initial aims set by Camden Plan (CP) can be achieved. Elements like empowerment and social capital were left out of CP since their power was not acknowledged. Urban commons are valuable because of their capability to tackle issues on different levels: from the individual, to the collective and to the city scale - from spatial to psychological renewal.
Public sPace
urban commons
community sPace
Garages are turned into community spaces and become the seed for the ‘commons’. Repurposed public space become an outdoor community space.
safety
Social capital as a result of the intensified conviviality between community members supports a safer Gospel Oak where people know, trust and care for each other.
accessibility
Public spaces become more accessible as they are revived and repurposed to support circus activities.
jobs & enterPrise
Jobs opportunities are created as a result of the learning process intertwined within all the activities for repurposing public space as commons.
queens’ crescent market
Queens Crescent Market is revived through the new circus social economy based on repurposed second-hand tools.
Fig.147: Gospel Oak Urban Commons addressing varied community issues.
75
FROM TACTICAL COMMUNITY REGENERATION TO STRATEGIC CONTRIBUTION TO UK PLANNING providing public space, culture, and environmental awareness
CIRCUS TRAINING WORKSHOP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP
CIRCUS MAKING WORKSHOP
LEARNING & AWARENESS The Gospel Oak regeneration, based on the repurposing of public space as ‘urban commons’, has its benefits not only within the community but beyond. Based on a collective governance model (defined as social enterprise / co-operative) it is mindful of the social context it sits, and can address wider issues within the UK context, such as gaps between service provision and public cuts of services such as culture, public space and environment. The process is exemplified in this graphic.
PUBLIC SPACE REGENERATION
SOCIAL ECONOMY SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
COMMUNITY LEVEL
PUBLIC SPACE: REGENERATION & COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT
UK CONTEXT 76
ARTS & CULTURE:
ENVIRONMENT:
ACCESSIBLE TO ALL
AWARENESS AND RECYLING
Fig.148: Gospel Oak regeneration, from local to city scale
CONTEXTUALISATION OF EACH REGENERATION ELEMENT Circus training is a means to conquer active wellbeing. It benefits individuals while connecting community members and activating a wider level of wellbeing through social capital.
A framework for active reflection on GO issues and potentials combines different expertises (community, practitioners and council) to catalyse regeneration through combined capabilities. Awareness of possibilities benefits all equally.
The circus maker workshops combines the benefits of DIY with environmental awareness and social capital. Impact is scaled from the individual level, to the community and environment.
Learning & awareness is the drive to repurposing community public spaces, the second becoming an inherent community need, and not a burden.
Local public space is acknowledged as a source and repurposed as a resource for community development.
SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
A civic economy emerges as a framework for community development, with public space repurposing being both a drive for and a result of it.
COMMUNITY LEVEL
Public space being threatened in the UK by lack of public management is a catalyser for community development, since it provides the context to give back the ‘commons’ to citizens. For collective management to occur, the use of public space must be proven benefitial for ‘commoners’ and strategies for that must be carefully structured jointly.
As culture is being threatened within the UK public cuts context, citizens can also appropriate it for community development. Moreover, it can support and be supported by public space while enhancing its accessibility for all and revitalising public life.
Recycling strategies can be made fun and valuable for community development. If they prove benefitial also for social and economic regeneration it is more likely communities will commit to it.
77
CONCLUSION
awareness overcoming limitations This project proposes new forms of participation for a collaborative society based on repurposing underused public spaces into ‘urban commons’. A critique is made to the Big Society agenda that considers communities as passive participants of planning processes and fails in ‘empowering’ them to develop. The literature review clarifies the structure for the ‘urban commons’ while contextualising its value on recent planning discussions. A framework for the ‘urban commons’ is interpreted, composed of four main elements: (i) accessible public space, (ii) collective governance, (iii) hands-on activities, (iv) benefits for the community. Case studies clarify how collaboration can be scaled up from community to city strategies, concluding that on ‘urban commons’ both scales co-exist and co-inform each other through the awareness of the city as networked spaces, people and resources. A toolkit is extracted from this analysis to inform the development of a project in the Gospel Oak community, London. The project is divided into two phases. The first one is a trial to transform an underused public space therein into ‘urban commons’. The second strategy relies in adapting a plan made by the Camden Council for regenerating Gospel Oak. The passive participation approach, inherited from the Big Society agenda, is then transformed into a collaborative process based on the ‘urban commons’. With two main elements, awareness and learning, the strategy proposes wider collaboration with the public, private and volunteering sector while using circus art as the regeneration theme, meant to unlock active wellbeing and support creative tackling of community issues - “the role of art practices in regeneration contexts is to ‘seize peculiarities of existence and allow people to feel more empowered.” (Shonfield, 2006) The main lesson extracted from this process is that there is one essential element to drive a society based on collaboration: Awareness. All of elements hindering its possibility are a result of lack of awareness, and suggestions are here made to reverse this: - (i)Trying to engage with a community on the first part of this project has proven to be very difficult, since there was no awareness of the value of making public space a resource for wellbeing and development.
- (ii) Authorities must be aware that it is not enough to allow communities to participate in the regeneration of their places, but they must become aware of the value intertwined in this process for both short-term and long-term. Thus, it is important that the council and practitioners initiate a process that enables discussion on the future of communities, bringing awareness on the possibilities for development, as exemplified in the second stage of this project. - (iii)The former also aims at clarifying the responsibilities of each party in the collaborative process, something not yet done and hindering the possibility of community development. This would make all equally aware on the capabilities and limitations of the others. - (iv) Learning through hands-on doing is a powerful element to bring awareness, stimulating the development of individual capabilities, while learning together supports social capital through the awareness of each other. - (v) Community members should be aware of the wider context they sit in before deciding on a regeneration strategy. Understanding how they can develop in relationship to their contribution to wider society makes decisions more meaningful and creates awareness on the city as a networked system. This is central to the ‘commons’. - (vi) Awareness is more valuable than empowerment - the second means nothing without the first, while the first can easily achieve the second. In conclusion this project compiles all of these different levels illuminating the value of public spaces as ‘urban commons’ to regenerate communities, and impacting on wider city levels issues resolution, all based on active and hands-on collaborative approaches that support learning, creative thinking and awareness. This contributes to remoulding the current passive models of participation in the UK into active ones based on public space, collective governance, hands-on activities and resulting in community benefits. The city as a patchwork of communities that can support Awareness on the urban commons - this will suffice.
This leads to the awareness that participation is a project in itself.
79
80
THE END
81
BIBLIOGRAPHY - Chirico, J. and Sennett, R. (1980). The Fall of Public Man. Sociological Analysis - Ahrensbach, T. and Conway, A. (2012). Compendium for the civic economy. Haarlem: Trancity x Valiz. (p.9;15) - Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press - Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup. Penguin Books Ltd - Awan, N., Schneider, T. and Till, J. (2011). Spatial agency. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge. - Ratti, C. and Claudel, M. (2015). Open source architecture. Thames and Hudson - Rosa, M., Weiland, U., Ayres, P. and Jacobs, O. (2015). Handmade urbanism. Berlin, [Germany] Jovis - Civilexchange.org.uk. (2016). Civil Exchange - Strengthening Society’s Connection To Government. [online] Available at: http://www.civilexchange.org.uk/whose-society-thefinal-big-society-audit [Last accessed 4 Sep. 2016]. (p.9;62) - Parker, S. (2014) The Council and the Commons. NLGN. [online] Available at: http://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/s34896/TheCouncilandtheCommons.pdf - Britton,T (2015), Designed to Scale. [online] Available at: https://issuu.com/participatorycity/docs/designed_to_scale_v.1 - Judson Hanifan, L. (1916). Social capital - its development and use. - Awan, N., Schneider, T. and Till, J. (2011). Spatial agency. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge. - Lydon, M. and Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical urbanism. New York: Island Press - Petrescu, D. (2006). If you can’t find it, give us a ring. Birmingham: ARTicle Press. - Carr, S. (1992). Public space. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. - Sassen, S (2006). Citiness in the Urban Age. Available at: https://urbanage.lsecities.net/ - Koolhaas, R., Mau, B. and Sigler, J. (1995) Whatever Happened to Urbanism. in S,M,L,XL. Rotterdam: 010 Publ. - Sennett, R (2006). The Open City. Available at: https://urbanage.lsecities.net/ - Tonnucci, F. Rissotto, A. (2001) Why do we need children’s participation, Journal of Community & Applied Psychology. - Bingham-Hall, J., Kaasa, A. (2015). Future of Cities Available at: https://www.gov.uk/ - 00 Architecture (2011) Compendium for the Civic Economy. Available at: https://issuu.com/architecture00/docs/compendium_for_the_civic_economy_publ - Sennett, R (1977) The fall of public man. New York.WW Norton & Company, - Moore, T. (2013) Homo Cooperans. Universiteit Utrecht. Available at: http://www.ruralhistory.eu/newsletter/2013/rhn-2013-150 - Till, J. (2009). Architecture depends. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. - Calder, A., (2015). Performing Sculpture. Tate Publishing - Sendra, P. (2015). Rethinking urban public space. City, 19(6), pp.820-836. - Wenders, W. (1995). Par-delà les images. Pierre d’angle, 1, pp.135-149. - Gehl, J. and Svarre, B. (2006). How to study public life.Island Press - Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island Press. - Heathcote, E. (2012). World business, finance, and political news from the Financial Times - FT.com. [online] Available at: http://www.ft.com/ [Last accessed 4 Sep. 2016]. - Shonfield, K. (2003). Walls have feelings. London: Routledge.
82