Difference between revisions of "Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods"

From Urban Arena Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Imagine a green and pedestrianized city district where residents have participated in creating affordable and sustainable housing.'''
'''Imagine a green and pedestrianized city district where residents have participated in creating affordable and sustainable housing (Q.2 & 3).'''


This intervention may be initiated by citizens wishing to live in more sustainable ways.With a common understanding and vision of what a sustainable neighbourhood is meant to be, i.e. affordable and low-energy housing, green areas as well as gentle mobility, citizens from diverse backgrounds could have identified their participation in formal urban development as the only way for this scenario to emerge. But can this be done? Specifically, converging interests with the municipality and its intentions to establish a new district while experimenting with innovative measures like participatory planning and the creation of citizens’ housing cooperatives, may be crucial. Citizen organizations, being progressively professionalized, and the municipality could work in partnership to implement the project whose success may depend on the good collaboration between them. Indeed, a real co-creation process can only result from the well-defined and (relatively) horizontal distribution of responsibilities between each group.  
'''How can we create this reality?'''
This intervention may be initiated by citizens wishing to live in more sustainable ways. With a common understanding of what a sustainable neighbourhood could look like (i.e. affordable and low-energy housing, green areas, and gentle mobility), citizens from diverse backgrounds could engage in formal urban development processes to bring their vision to life. More specifically, these plans should converge with the municipality’s interest in establishing a new district, in so doing experimenting with innovative measures such as participatory planning and the integration of citizens’ housing cooperatives (Q.10). Success would depend on the collaboration between citizen organizations, which would be progressively professionalized, and the municipality working in partnership to implement the project (Q.13). Indeed, a real co-creation process can only result from the well-defined and (relatively) horizontal distribution of responsibilities between each group (Q.15).  


Building on the experiences of previous community projects could facilitate citizens’ participation. Indeed, such background may provide legitimacy to citizen-led interventions as well as enhance trust among municipal actors in the capacity of citizen groups to successfully implement projects. Additionally, benefiting from organizational and human resources from other community networks may be of great support for the project’s proponents.  
Building on the experiences of previous community projects could facilitate citizens’ participation. Indeed, such background may provide legitimacy to citizen-led interventions and build trust among municipal actors in the capacity of citizen groups to successfully implement projects (Q.20). Additionally, the organizational and human resources from other community networks may be of great support for the project’s proponents (Q.27).  


Undoubtedly, such innovative collaboration cannot work smoothly right out of the gate, some obstacles may be encountered on the way.  For example, bureaucratic frameworks usually used by municipalities in urban development projects may not be adapted for such co-creation projects. Eventually, it could constrain citizen participation who may then feel unjustly treated and disregarded by the municipality. Dissensus may also arise between grassroot project proponents having contrasting visions about the district development (e.g. more libertarian or more institutionalized ambitions).
'''Which problems could arise for such a project?'''
Undoubtedly, such innovative collaboration may not work smoothly right out of the gate, and some obstacles could be encountered on the way.  For example, bureaucratic frameworks usually used by municipalities in urban development projects may not be adapted for such co-creation projects. Eventually, it could constrain citizen participation who may feel unjustly treated or disregarded by the municipality (Q.23). Dissensus may also arise between grassroot project proponents that have contrasting visions about the district development (e.g. more libertarian or more institutionalized ambitions).


Since such obstacles are mostly related to a lack of communication and misunderstandings, most important may be to express any discontents or frustrations (e.g. about procedures and visions) and discuss these issues. Handy solutions could be found in appreciating the mutual wishes and expectations of the different citizen groups and the municipality. A mediator reestablishing the dialogue between these actors may be of great support. As roles and expectations would be adjusted as well as transparency and mutual trust between actors granted, the project could be successfully implemented.  
'''How can we deal with these obstacles?'''
Since such obstacles are often related to misunderstandings or a lack of communication, most important would be to openly discuss any frustrations (e.g. about procedures and visions) and appreciating the mutual expectations of the different citizen groups and the municipality. A mediator or the creation of a special council with representatives from both groups could facilitate dialogue and be of great support (Q.24). As roles and expectations are necessarily adjusted and transparency and mutual trust between actors is reestablished (Q.29), the project could be successfully implemented.
This intervention on governance arrangements for urban development projects aims at being inspirational for citizens and urban policy makers (Q.31). Eventually, key governance arrangements featured in this scenario may be replicated elsewhere, including in different sectors at the municipal level or/and to other urban contexts (Q.33).


This intervention on governance arrangements for urban development projects aims at being inspirational for citizens and urban policy makers. Eventually, key governance arrangements featured in this scenario may be replicated elsewhere, including in different sectors at the municipal level or/and to other urban contexts.
'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''


==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==
==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==


Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]] that has inspired this scenario.
This scenario was based on the development of the [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg|Vauban Eco-District]] in Freiburg, Germany, where the municipality created a special representative council (Vauban City Planning Council) and collaborated with citizen’s groups (namely the Forum Vauban and co-housing initiatives) to co-create the sustainable neighborhood project.  If you are interested in how obstacles have been overcome in this case, see Q24. Check out their website to learn more: http://quartiersarbeit-vauban.de/das-quartier-vauban/
 
This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':
[[A) Create a comprehensive vision of change]]: Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc.
[[C) Build bridges between separate stakeholder groups]]: The “Vauban city planning council” was a consultative committee consisting of municipal actors, local parliamentarians and citizens. It can be considered as an intermediary as it was a place for discussion and mediation between stakeholders.
[[D) Commit to a meaningful participation process]]: The citizen-led Vauban Forum was invited to participate in the “Vauban city planning council” (a consultative committee within the city council) which indicates that the municipality recognizes citizens as legitimate partners in the project development.
[[E) Tap into existing community networks]]: Housing Cooperative Networks in Germany inspired to some extent project proponents. Specifically, they benefited from the expertise of the cooperative confederation regarding economy, law and tax policy.
   
   
This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]. The approach refers to a variety of approaches and movements that aim to provide affordable, ecological or community housing in both urban and rural contexts.
*[[Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
*[[Governance and participation processes]]. This approach geared toward urban sustainability emphasise defining and addressing environmental problems as well as envisioning the future of cities, mainly based on the co-production of knowledge through innovative, diverse and strategic partnerships.
*[[Governance and participation processes]]
*[[Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]. The approach refers to a paradigm shift away from individualistic and exclusivity practices, which are embedded in modern urbanism and urban lifestyles in regards to particular resources and services. Sharing is a central aspect of commoning practices, while commons governance often takes the form of cooperatives.
*[[Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]


It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]. This driver refers to the ways in which new urban developments might force trade-offs between the social and environmental goals of urban sustainability projects. It involves public efforts to improve a neighbourhood’s physical structure and boost its economy by attracting investment, usually in the sectors of real estate and tourism.
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
*[[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]. This driver refers to the ways in which territory, identity, education, knowledge, and information are used to draw lines, privileges, and hierarchies between social groups, and especially to how this leads to an uneven distribution of benefits from urban sustainability efforts.
*[[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]. This driver refers to the limited involvement and engagement of citizens and citizens’ initiatives in decision-making around the planning, design, implementation and/or evaluation of urban sustainability-oriented interventions.
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
 
What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Revision as of 15:39, 13 December 2020

Imagine a green and pedestrianized city district where residents have participated in creating affordable and sustainable housing (Q.2 & 3).

How can we create this reality? This intervention may be initiated by citizens wishing to live in more sustainable ways. With a common understanding of what a sustainable neighbourhood could look like (i.e. affordable and low-energy housing, green areas, and gentle mobility), citizens from diverse backgrounds could engage in formal urban development processes to bring their vision to life. More specifically, these plans should converge with the municipality’s interest in establishing a new district, in so doing experimenting with innovative measures such as participatory planning and the integration of citizens’ housing cooperatives (Q.10). Success would depend on the collaboration between citizen organizations, which would be progressively professionalized, and the municipality working in partnership to implement the project (Q.13). Indeed, a real co-creation process can only result from the well-defined and (relatively) horizontal distribution of responsibilities between each group (Q.15).

Building on the experiences of previous community projects could facilitate citizens’ participation. Indeed, such background may provide legitimacy to citizen-led interventions and build trust among municipal actors in the capacity of citizen groups to successfully implement projects (Q.20). Additionally, the organizational and human resources from other community networks may be of great support for the project’s proponents (Q.27).

Which problems could arise for such a project? Undoubtedly, such innovative collaboration may not work smoothly right out of the gate, and some obstacles could be encountered on the way. For example, bureaucratic frameworks usually used by municipalities in urban development projects may not be adapted for such co-creation projects. Eventually, it could constrain citizen participation who may feel unjustly treated or disregarded by the municipality (Q.23). Dissensus may also arise between grassroot project proponents that have contrasting visions about the district development (e.g. more libertarian or more institutionalized ambitions).

How can we deal with these obstacles? Since such obstacles are often related to misunderstandings or a lack of communication, most important would be to openly discuss any frustrations (e.g. about procedures and visions) and appreciating the mutual expectations of the different citizen groups and the municipality. A mediator or the creation of a special council with representatives from both groups could facilitate dialogue and be of great support (Q.24). As roles and expectations are necessarily adjusted and transparency and mutual trust between actors is reestablished (Q.29), the project could be successfully implemented. This intervention on governance arrangements for urban development projects aims at being inspirational for citizens and urban policy makers (Q.31). Eventually, key governance arrangements featured in this scenario may be replicated elsewhere, including in different sectors at the municipal level or/and to other urban contexts (Q.33).

How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?

Do you want to learn more about this scenario?

This scenario was based on the development of the Vauban Eco-District in Freiburg, Germany, where the municipality created a special representative council (Vauban City Planning Council) and collaborated with citizen’s groups (namely the Forum Vauban and co-housing initiatives) to co-create the sustainable neighborhood project. If you are interested in how obstacles have been overcome in this case, see Q24. Check out their website to learn more: http://quartiersarbeit-vauban.de/das-quartier-vauban/

This scenario relates to some enabling governance arrangements: A) Create a comprehensive vision of change: Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. C) Build bridges between separate stakeholder groups: The “Vauban city planning council” was a consultative committee consisting of municipal actors, local parliamentarians and citizens. It can be considered as an intermediary as it was a place for discussion and mediation between stakeholders. D) Commit to a meaningful participation process: The citizen-led Vauban Forum was invited to participate in the “Vauban city planning council” (a consultative committee within the city council) which indicates that the municipality recognizes citizens as legitimate partners in the project development. E) Tap into existing community networks: Housing Cooperative Networks in Germany inspired to some extent project proponents. Specifically, they benefited from the expertise of the cooperative confederation regarding economy, law and tax policy.

This scenario fits under the approaches:

It addresses some drivers of injustice:

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to Philipp Spaeth.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Collaborating_Across_Institutional_Boundaries:_Co-Creating_Sustainable_Neighborhoods&oldid=3298"