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

From Urban Arena Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This scenario has been developed on the basis of a [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg|real world case]].
[[File:Vauban Freiburg picture.jpg |500px]]
'''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.'''


This intervention may be initiated by citizens wishing to live in more sustainable ways. With a clear vision of a sustainable neighbourhood, citizens 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. Citizens 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 [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#10. Who initiated the intervention?|(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 [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.|(Q.13)]]. Indeed, a real co-creation process can only result from the well-defined and (relatively) horizontal distribution of responsibilities between each group [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?|(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 [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)|(Q.20)]]. Additionally, the organizational and human resources from other community networks may be of great support for the project’s proponents [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?|(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 citizens' participation, who may then feel unjustly treated or disregarded by the municipality [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:|(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 [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)|(Q.24)]]. As roles and expectations are necessarily adjusted and transparency and mutual trust between actors is reestablished [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?|(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 [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#31. Suggestions regarding transferability.|(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 [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)|(Q.33)]].
 
'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''


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.
==Do you want to learn more about 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, [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)|see Q24]]. Check out their website to learn more: http://quartiersarbeit-vauban.de/das-quartier-vauban/
 
This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':
*[[1) Create a comprehensive vision of change|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.
*[[3) Build bridges between separate stakeholder groups|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.
*[[4) Commit to a meaningful participation process|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.
*[[5) Tap into existing community networks|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.
   
   
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.
This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
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 discuss these issues. Handy solutions could be found in appreciating the mutual wishes and expectations of citizens 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.
*[[Governance and participation processes]]
*[[Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
 
It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
*[[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]


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.
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]].

Latest revision as of 18:09, 18 February 2021

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real world case.

Vauban Freiburg picture.jpg


Imagine a green and pedestrianized city district where residents have participated in creating affordable and sustainable housing.

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 citizens' participation, who may then 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:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.