Cities for all conference 2018 report (3)

Page 1


Conference Report Introduction


Cities for All Stockholm Conference Program


Summaries of Key Speakers


Peter Moskowitz


Michael Mehaffy


Maria Abedowale-Schwarte

Thursday Workshops

8 11

Celebrating Europe


Co-creating the European Placemaking Network


Financial Models & Real Estate


Placemaking Facilitation Game




Cooperative Cities


Friday on-site Workshops


Stora Torget, Uppsala


KTH Torget






Peter Myndes Backe


Friday Workshops


Innovation Quarters


Gender-Inclusive Public Spaces


Walkable Cities


Gentrification and Liveliness of Small Cities and Towns


Cultural life in Newly Built Areas




Conclusions of the Cities for All conference


Managing the European Placemaking Network


Research Agenda for European Placemaking Network


Bringing the European Placemaking Toolbox to the next level


Gentrification, segregation and inclusion


Join us for the next chapters


Partners & Sponsors Participant List

56 58


Introduction The Cities for All Conference in Stockholm marked the launch of the European Placemaking Network. Around a 170 placemakers from 20 European countries and placemakers from other continents joined together for 2 unforgettable days. The conference in Stockholm was not the first moment a European Placemaking Network was discussed. During Placemaking Week in Amsterdam in October 2017 one of the workshops was dedicated to exploring ways to work together as European placemakers. The energy and urge to work together as European placemakers was the start for the European Placemaking Network. This can become a network that can work closely together with the Placemaking Leadership Council that was started by PPS. As a European Placemaking Network we aim to discuss placemaking issues that are priorities in cities all over Europe. Following the agenda set by UN Habitat, in the conference we focused on gentrification, segregation and inclusion. These topics play an important role in creating cities for all. In plenary talks and panel discussions we were challenged by experts on gentrification, segregation and inclusion to think about when cities are in balance. In workshops we shared are placemaking stories, worked on a European Placemaking Toolbox and deepened the discussion on cities in balance. During on-site visits we worked together with practitioners from Stockholm and Uppsala on current challenges in their projects. In this report of the conference, the films and photos, the articles written by workshop leaders, give you an overview and insights into the addressed issues and placemaking tools currently in use. This report also provides references if you want to read more about specific case studies, talk to members of the network, or learn more about the results of the workshops and field trips. The conference and this report are just a start. In the coming years we hope to continue working together in the network. We aim to: - Connect people and networks in Europe: placemakers, practitioners, universities, cities, developers, existing networks and other actors. - Exchange knowledge, experience, skills and best practices - To organize training activities, learning by doing. - To create, fund and implement European/cross-country/international programmes and projects. - To influence policy making in European countries and cities.. - To connect with the international and other regional placemaking networks (Latin and North America, Australia and New Zealand, Africa and Asia). We want to create this network together. We want to reach out to you to work with us and each other. For more information:


Cities for All Stockholm Conference Program Thursday Morning Welcoming words ●

Tigran Haas Director of the Centre for the Future of Places, Associate Professor & Director of the Graduate Program in Urbanism at the School of Architecture and Built Environment at KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Ragnar Lund Guest Researcher at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Senior Lecturer and head of the Program for Cultural Management Studies at Stockholm University, CEO of AB Tertius

Jeroen Laven Partner at STIPO, Co-Founder of The City at Eye Level, Board member of Re:kreators and Vereniging Verenigd Schouwburgplein

Juliet Kahne Educational and Events Manager at Project for Public Spaces (PPS), PhD Urban Geography Kings College London on gentrification and cultural identity.

Plenary Talks ●

Peter Moskowitz Author of the book “How to Kill a City”

Michael Mehaffy Director of the Future of Places Research Network. Senior Researcher at KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Managing director of the Sustasis Foundation.

Maria Adebowale-Schwarte Founding Director of Living Space Project.

Panel discussion Watch the ​Panel Discussion​ on the European Placemaking Network YouTube channel! Panel Discussion with Eline Hogendijk from the City of Amsterdam, Bert Determann from the Theatre of Rotterdam, and OISTAT, Fredrik Drotte from ÅWL Architects and Helena Olsson from Fastighetsägarna. Moderation by Michael Mehaffy.


Key Speakers

Peter Moskowitz Watch Peter’s talk on ​the European Placemaking Network​ YouTube channel

Diverse, safe, tree-lined streets and a mixture of services and access to public transportation; these are all the things we think of as great placemaking tools and that’s how we foster inclusive and dynamic neighbourhoods. But nowadays these neighbourhoods can quickly die out. The independent shops close and designer chain shop move in. It becomes less dynamic and the people are less diverse. What is surprising is how this is happening everywhere at the same time, in the US and internationally. Mainstream media coverage used to be around artsy hipsters helping to improve the neighbourhood, and how “pop-up parks” were the new buzzwords. What it wasn’t covering was the violence and destruction that was taking place in order to get these new amenities in the neighbourhood. Secondly, there was no “why is this happening?” Peter’s book highlights how gentrification isn’t a bottom-up phenomenon, collectively done by hipsters, but rather it is a purpose-built government-run program that incentivises the lives of some and disincentives the lives of others. Gentrification is not just about buildings or displacement, but rather governments favouring the lives of certain people. City funding is a big indicator of how gentrification happened. In 1970s top tax rates were in the high 70%, whereas nowadays it is 32%. Public services, the things needed to make a city function, are dying. Cities are therefore forced to compete for rich people in order to survive. The rich are needed to fund everything that is required for a functioning city. This is therefore the connection to Richard Florida’s creative class strategy. The rich creative class can then be taxes through property tax, sales tax and corporate tax for companies who locate there to employ them. Gentrification is unfortunately an attractive economic strategy for most cities because it is easy. Planting trees, opening a new art gallery that will attract new people and that will save the city is easier to promote, than facing the fact that the city has stopped funding public housing and abolished their social safety net. If we want to challenge gentrification and make our cities more equal then we have to admit and challenge those bigger issues. In New Orleans, the city used Hurricane Katrina to gentrify. The economy has improved, the film industry has picked up and new urban work projects are going on. Rent is twice and expensive, and there are around 100,000 fewer african americans in the city. And unfortunately Detroit is now becoming the same. Lots of space to develop. The city is investing in the 7.2 miles of the central city. The government partners with millionaires to create their own city, thus focusing on enriching the already rich areas. The planning has led to inequality, and the rich can be their own planners. On paper it looks great but it is a privatised form of placemaking because city government is so weak and have no real power they just approve of plans. Everyone who can’t afford to create their own plans, statistically the african american families living in the suburbs,


end up disadvantaged as they don’t have the tools to create their city, nor the time to protest what is happening. Gentrification is socially and racially cleansing our society. New York and San Fransisco are the “end goals” of gentrification. It is all about capital and how to grow it. On 57th Street, near to Central Park, the high-rise residential buildings are almost empty. They are owned by banks and investment companies, and in Peter’s view “this is purest distillation of what gentrification is: it’s a way to turn a city into a machine to produce money.” It is not tenable as a place for people. Whilst urban planners are aware of all of these issues that gentrification brings, it is almost impossible to change government's’ views on the economic benefits that gentrification can bring. It is harder to tackle problems of inequality than saying we can become rich through gentrification and fund our city’s services - in other words, the trickle down effect.

Michael Mehaffy Watch Michael’s talk on ​the European Placemaking Network YouTube channel Michael Mehaffy discussed the connection between the challenge of gentrification and what we as placemakers should be doing about the problem. ​How much are we part of the solution and how much are we part of the problem?​ This is something we have to honestly ask ourselves. Richard Florida and Edward Glaeser have articulated this idea that we need to create these nuclear reactors of cities that are going to give us these great economic benefits and they’re going to shower down to all of us. That is very much the idea of exploring the ‘​agglomeration benefits’ ​of cities which are very real. But the question we do have to ask is if a little is good, is a lot always better? Whilst Richard Florida and Edward Glaeser have both recognised some of the drawbacks of this kind of thinking, we need to rethink what we are doing if we are focusing on the capital side of the equation and overlooking the human side. Ultimately, that is something that affects the capital side as well. It is unsustainable in the end.Jane Jacob argued for a kind of optimum of diversity that would be good for the bottom line in the long run, as well as good for justice and good for everybody. She also argued that minimum wealth and minimal diversity are not good for cities in a form of slum, but neither was maximum wealth with minimum diversity because then you have an enclave, or gentrification. So we need to aim for the sweet-spot on the Jacob’s Curve. She also argued that we have to be careful because diversity will self destruct if you don’t resist it. In order to resist we need to create those brakes, those policies, those tools, those things that are going to make it possible for diversity to be maintained in this optimum state. So this is the kind of false dichotomy you see in a place like New Orleans: ‘well everybody is poor so we need to gentrify, that’s the only alternative.’ In fact we need to aim for that optimum range. The result of that is gentrification, inequality, displacement and other kinds of problems. The solution to that is to just cram a bunch of new buildings into the core, on the theory that if you 6

meet demand with supply, the prices will go down. When you are supplying very expensive high-rises, prices are not going to go down, you’re going to fuel the problem that you’re trying to solve. That connects also to network theory which tells us it is not just the core that matters, but it’s the entire network that generates benefits. Diversity is good for everyone’s bottom line including geographic diversity. The idea of Voodoo-urbanism, as you might have heard of Voodoo-economics where you just focus on the wealthiest people at the top of the pyramid all the benefits will trickle down to everybody else. The same is true for this model of city making where you just focus on the wealthy cores and you make sure that they get wealthier and wealthier and that’s going to trickle down to everybody else in the city. That is Voodoo-urbanism, and that is not economically sustainable nor just. If we look at the New Urban Agenda as a landmark document that proclaims Cities for All, we can recognise these issues for us as placemakers as people that are thinking about our tools and strategies. We are recognising that we do have rapid urbanisation, which in some cases is good news. It bring opportunities for better health, a better human development, opportunities for women, but on the other hand there are many alarming aspects to it as well. Much of what is being built is sprawling, resource-inefficient, dysfunctional in other ways, and now it is gentrifying. The New Urban Agenda really addresses these issues squarely, with language that talks about ‘​well-connected’​, ‘​compactness and density .. mixed use’, ‘walkable’, ‘prioritizing renewal, regeneration and retrofitting’, recognizing ‘agglomeration benefits’ ​of cities and also the idea polycentrism, as a way of preventing the overheating​. ​Again that goes back to the kind of things Jane Jacobs talked about ‘​The kind of problem a city is ..’ ​that it is a form of organized complexity. We as planners and architects, designers, need to be thinking that way and about how placemaking fits into that process and response to these challenges. What is placemaking? How do we define it? How do we do it? Why does it matter? And to be blunt about it: how do we answer the charge if you guys are just rearranging your plaza chairs on an urban Titanic? That is what sometimes the challenge to placemaking is, or you’re just fueling gentrification by making places nicer. We need to respond to those challenges and respond to the broader context. What is it about cities that brings people to them? ​Why are we getting rapid urbanization? Why are we getting overheating? What is it that cities give us? Why do we built cities at all? The structure of the city, the physical structure of public and private space manifests a political and legal system that “mediates between conflicting freedoms” (Paul Murrain). An urban relationship means we can constrain each other’s freedom. “For example you want to have the freedom to party until three in the morning and I want to have the freedom to sleep, one way to solve that issue is to separate our residencies.” This creates sprawl. It segregates where there is conflict. But as placemakers, we find mediation between those conflicts. If you want to party till 3am maybe can create a soundproof wall, without simply isolating ourselves from one another. We’re still connected to each other. This self-organization of the connective networks of urban space is rooted in the scale of human beings, and human experience - what we might call “​place networks”​. To conclude, this idea of voodoo-urbanism, as a silver bullets approach to the economic challenges of cities is not going to work because it is fundamentally flawed, unsustainable. But if we think carefully about how to develop catalytic growth, use placemaking and build diversity; that can work. But we can’t simply be upgrading places without understanding the broader context and working in response to this context. 7

Maria Abedowale - Schwarte Watch Maria’s talk on ​the European Placemaking Network YouTube channe​l Maria titled her talk today as “The Placemaking Factor: Disrupting Gentrification ​the bad kind​”. Using the word Gentrification is problematic in itself, because some of the elements of Gentrification that lays in improving an area is actually a good thing. We look at the term in a way of people being displaced by the rich. Whilst we don’t want to say we work in gentrification but we do work in a political field. Our job is very political, and this is not discussed enough. Social justice, equality, and meeting the challenges of an urbanised world in both the north and the south of the hemisphere. There is a global discussion of placemaking and what the UN has noticed is that place is political. The UN SDG goal 11 is about creating cities for all i.e. inclusive and resilient. In order to tackle that, we own what we do. If we are going to tackle gentrification we need to talk about a few things and bring them into the conversation: we build assets (economic and social). How do we build these assets? Whilst we all will have our own perspectives on this, these are some examples: Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, wants to build a leading city around “good growth”. This is about good economics, similar to the “doughnut economy”. The economy is not just there to grow and create money for the few, but also look at the needs of the many; therefore this only happens by how much you do that meets the needs of the people living in London. So, for London, Good Growth means regeneration that creates social housing. In England the loss of social housing in inner cities is not good placemaking and it is not good growth. A watchful eye over the strategy of placemaking, and an agenda that works on the political level. In the UK, there is a lot of Placemaking happening. The UK has a massive grant-making sector now opening up philanthropic placemaking funding programs. When you bring philanthropic organisations interested in social justice to the table, that turns around some of the focus on place. It is not just about creating towns and cities where only a certain type of person can live in, but asking the difficult questions around social justice to find the solutions to them. What works is when places are designed with communities at the table. Why aren’t they more involved? Asking them to come at 6.30pm in the evening isn’t always an option. Making sure we are there when they are is what we should be looking at. We don’t have conversations with communities as well as we should. Gentrification is built as if building and money matter, and not humans. This means we need new structures, but as Placemakers, we also need to be asking about the politics of these structures at international, national and local level. Understanding how policies can be changed and which specific policies need to change is what makes a good placemaker. 8

Things we need to be comfortable with: ● Place is political - we are political and what we do makes a difference. We need to be making the alternatives to the things that we find problematic ● Lead by asking difficult questions - Asking your clients, your communities “what do you mean by placemaking?” and “what do you want from the space?” Their answer will determine whether you will be part of the gentrification process, or part of the alternative solution. ● When you are working with communities, do they really reflect the communities you want to be working with? Collaborating in an inclusive way is important because it is difficult to have the answers if you don’t have the right people around the table ● We are disruptors and we need to realise this will be unsettling but crucial. Gentrification won’t go away unless we actively fight it.



written by the workshop leaders


Thursday Workshops First round Celebrating Europe Learning from best-practices with professionals from all over Europe Led by Jeroen Laven (STIPO), with the support Andreea Maier (CIVITTA Romania), Ramon Marrades & Sofia Parra (Marina de Valencia), Viktor Kasala (City of Bratislava), Marko Zlonoga (URBACT), Maja Ceko (City of Sibenik URBACT Vital Cities), Marijana Zizic (City of Solin), Andrea Überbacher (Urban researcher, Vienna) & Helene Gallis (Nabolagshager, Norway). Co-Creating the European Placemaking Network Identifying how to operationalise a co-creating autonomous Network Led by Sander van der Ham (STIPO), with the support of Michael Mehaffy (Future of Places Research Network), Charlot Schans (Pakhuis de Zwijger), Anna Kovacs-Györi (University of Salzburg), Juliet Kahne (PPS) with input from Beitske Boonstra (University of Ghent) & Ciaran Cuffe (Dublin Institute of Technology). Financial Models & Real Estate Using financial models for placemaking initiatives in urban management and development Led by Ragnar Lund (KTH/Tertius), with the support of Theo Stauttener (Stad2), Wendy Rowden (42nd Street Development Corporation), Rozina Spinnoy (BIDs Belgium), Helena Olsson (Fastighetsägarna). Second round Placemaking Facilitation Game Using personas to better understand community engagement and interest management Led by Laska Nenova (BG Be Active Association), Todor Kesarovski (Informal Association) & Angel Bondov (Informal Association). Inclusiveness How to include marginalised groups in the development of public space Led by Minouche Besters (STIPO), with the support of Juliet Kahne (PPS), Maria Adebowale-Schwarte (Living Space Project) & Rebecca Rubin (White Architects). Co-operative Cities Cooperatively developing cities by supporting each other Led by Maarten Desmet (Endeavour), with the support of Christian Grauvogel (Re:kreators), Jaakko Blomberg (Urban activist) & Joost Beunderman (00).


Celebrating Europe Many great placemaking initiatives are happening all over Europe. In this workshop we gathered examples from the North, South and East to exchange knowledge and look for new solutions. We talked about the quest of individual cases, the connection with gentrification, inclusion and segregation, and the tools that were most successful. During the workshop there were several 5-minute pitches of placemaking initiatives throughout Europe, ranging from Bucharest to Valencia and from Vienna to Oslo. Each pitch explained the main characteristics of the initiative, the relation to gentrification and inclusion, and the placemaking tools and methods that were used in the initiative. In the second half of the workshop the participants divided into groups to discuss the topics of the different pitches. The main objective was to find out how the experience of one initiative could help another. One of the key challenges for placemaking that was discussed during the workshop, was community engagement. The eagerness of placemakers is not always matched by the local community. Quick action bears the risk to exclude people who were not engaged from the beginning. To get the local community on board you need time to be able to build a sense of trust. Building trust is not something you can do on your own, that is why in any initiative it is important to build a relationship with the gatekeepers of the local networks. Another important topic we discussed was the role of placemaking as an educator. Several initiatives have shown that is it possible to use placemaking to teach people skills and help them reconnect to the larger society. Finally, the many different nationalities at the workshop, brought about the inevitable discussion on the climate. Northern European placemakers look eagerly to the south where sunny weather seems to make placemaking much easier. What do we do in climates that are not that fortunate? What would be the potential of winter placemaking? The workshop uncovered several important topics that highlight the necessity of concrete tools. It underlined the need for an approach/method to building trust within communities, also it addresses the need for a strategy to engage with the gatekeepers of the community networks. Other tools that would be valuable are methods on how to integrate skill building within placemaking activities, and how to do placemaking in the winter. For all these topics we hope to gather adequate tools in the EPN-toolbox. Links for more information:


Co-creating the European Placemaking Network This conference was the official laugh of the European Placemaking Network (EPN). The idea behind the workshop was to see how members and potential future members could collectively design how the network could work. Currently it is still in its idea phase. Everyone wants to be a part of it but no one knows what direction to take nor how to make it happen. STIPO have agreed to be to be the initial propagators for the network, and hope that after 1 year is fully functioning as an autonomous network. First of all, during the workshop, participants were asked what they were able to put into the network. They wrote these ideas on a sticky note and gave them to the workshop leader, Sander van der Ham. “Only a tiny note? But I have so much to give.” “I want more collaboration from cities. Can we visit each other and learn from each other? I want to share my email, phone number. We need to talk and to find each other. That is the whole purpose of the network.” They were then given a balloon to stick it to. By a show of hands, around 8 people could offer research, 16 could offer contacts and additional networks, 14 could bring in money, and everyone could work towards offering ideas. Yet, when asked who knew what the network ​should​ look like, no one raised their hand. Afterwards, participants could join different discussions based on the main 5 categories: ● The charter: creating a shared vision for everyone to work towards. ● Joint research agenda: What places, topics, questions should we research? ● Joint agenda: What upcoming events and conferences are happening, and which do we include? ● Implementing and enriching the Toolbox: What are the next steps for the toolbox? How do we add to it and keep it going? ● Attracting and binding partners: How do we reach out to universities, placemakers, city professionals to collaborate with us? Ambassadors were selected and were given the task of asking others for feedback during the remaining 2 days at the conference, to gain some more understanding of how some of these categories can be understood. The results of this was as follows. Charter Ambassador: Susanne Lager An agreed definition for PLACEMAKING From the more general first responses of "turning space into places", "making places better" and "increasing the presence of humans in public space" almost all discussions that followed turned into more specific (and very much in consensus) of the "howabouts" and the "higher aims" about: • Sense of ownership and belonging • Joint collaborations (of users, stakeholders and residentials) • Including working processes, engaging of the users


Photo credit: Susanne Lager The primary take-away was that people really aim for the method to be everything BUT the "Buzz" and that instead, Placemaking, fundamentally, is all about: • Participation • The building of communities • Creation of natural social functions that may be lacking in our cities • The opportunities for integration of individuals and groups who don't easily meet. • By collaborating processes, we're signalling the ownership of our common urban sphere, stating clearly that it's there for everyone to influence All in all, the strong sense of engagement amongst the people I talked to, boiled down to this: Placemaking is foremost about the "US", i.e. the people, and moreover, about real EQUALITY and the RIGHT TO THE CITY. The Placemaking movement is about stating and enforcing a strong sense of possibility of REAL INFLUENCE and EMPOWERMENT - of the people and their environment. Facilitating platforms for bringing people together (in processes as well as in the actual spaces created) under the concept of Placemaking is then, accordingly, an important part and a gap to be filled, towards INCLUSIVE CITIES. Most people I talked with find it of essence that we work on a MISSION to broaden the awareness for the capacity and potential of Placemaking as a TOOL of DEMOCRACY. "The influenceable city" as someone put it. JOINING the network and more importantly to STAY in the platform as an ACTIVE (and potentially paying) USER One of the most common responses to the question of engaging, using and contributing (personally, professionally and possibility by financial means in form of paid membership) to the network platform was foremost: The expectations for the network to have CLEAR PURPOSES AND VALUES, both for themselves as direct users of the platform and also for the CREDIBILITY


for members of adding the network as a reference when initializing projects, for example towards the municipality. The following criteria were viewed as the most crucial features to join and stay as an active user: • The importance of a well-structured platform • Easy to feel as part of and easy to get connected with and within. • An intuitive interface and well-defined areas of knowledge, subjects, contacts, projects etc. OPEN SOURCE. • Democratic platform that reflects the higher goals of Placemaking. Welcoming and including for anyone interesting. No hierarchy or prestige. A "place to meet" just "like the places we aim to create". • Once established, people foresaw the wish for "Active learning"; trainings (in real life or net-based), meet-ups etc. Several people suggested that, to succeed in providing this kind of platform, there needs to be a PAID POSITION for administration, maintenance and continuous activity, keeping the network "alive and kicking". PERSONAL VALUE for being part of the NETWORK • Being able to connect to a variety of people and professions, hence a platform that is open to anyone who is involved in or wants to be involved in learning about Placemaking processes. • The ability to easily share knowledge and tools and to support each other's projects. • The credibility of being part of a network. • The integration and collaboration of different cities' approaches. Best practices / lessons learned / struggles and solutions / differences and similarities. • Inspiration of the network itself / Sense of POSSIBILITY! • Learn more about workshops and processes. • Learn about different ways to engage "everyone" / or as many people as possible, when initiating a Placemaking project • Confidence to get started and START DOING Joint Research Agenda Ambassador: Hampus Busk My field was the possible future Research Agenda of the EPN. The specific question formulated in the workshop was: ​how we could develop such an agenda that specifically addresses social as well as economic sustainability​. ​This is a summary of the response I received: Respond to the needs in three perspectives: As a EPN we have to adhere to the first-hand needs of the network members. At the same time, we need to produce research of general significance of those we want to influence and/or the imagined recipients of placemaking efforts. This 3-perspective approach could be codified in 2 different ways. Firstly, in a standardised procedure where we put forward a guide on how to map and ‘concretise’ research goals. Another possible take on this would be a model for participatory workshops where these groups are gathered around a certain case. In this forum, the parties represented would have the possibility of co-define their needs. To ensure that the Research Agenda doesn’t limit the subject matter of future research, it could be formalised as a paragraph in the Charter. A standard is set on subject description, approach, communication and information sharing (a “Creative Commons” model has been the most commonly mentioned). 15

Implementing and Enriching the Toolbox Ambassador: Todor Kesarovski I chose to ask 3 questions during the remainder of the conference. My results are as follows: 1) How could the open data access and format of a common toolbox be organised? The most discussed question by the conference participants was the operational part of the toolbox. While it has been agreed upon the development of an interactive online platform to accommodate it, there are serious doubts concerning what type of mean should be used: a collaboratively edited platform (e.g. Wikipedia), an interaction network (e.g. forum, blog, vlog etc.) or an on-demand service platform. The major notion is that the type of communication mean for the toolbox should encourage a meaningful and dynamic connection between the professionals. 2) Who should be responsible for the toolbox’s ownership and organisation? These thoughts upon the toolbox’s organisational operation are closely interrelated with the question of who owns the platform and who is responsible for its maintenance. Despite the acknowledgment of shared liability for the platform development, the dominated view is that it is required to have a formally recognised entity, which should oversee and steer the process. This would involve actions such as organisational structuring, content editing and leading potential funding efforts to strengthen the platform etc. There is a shared opinion that lots of good things have already been done or started. They represent valuable assets on which could be built upon. 3) How the operation of such a toolbox can be funded? Understandably, the question about funding such an effort is a hard one to discuss. The overlaying idea is the that initial support should be secured in a form of a (research) grant from the European Union or another large-scale institution. In long-term this financial support could come from the network itself through membership fees but it should be carefully organised in relation with the access and distribution of the toolbox’s content. Proposed Visions 1) Nurturing a meaningful connection and high level of interactivity through the platform. The toolbox is a practical way to exchange knowledge, collaborate and develop partnerships; thus, it is fundamental for the European Placemaking Network development. 2) Constituting the European Placemaking Network as the entity that will be responsible behind the development and the organisation of such a platform to build credibility and in a long-term support for the toolbox. 3) Having a membership for the European Placemaking Network or ensuring long-term financial support from research partners and universities. Proposed Solutions 1) Publish the drafted toolbox book as an OER (Open Educational Resources) under the Creative Commons License CC-BY (or CC-BY- SA). 2) Form a team (incl. members from the European Placemaking Network) that will be able to commit and initiate the platform foundation. 3) Secure support from European Union funds or other research grants; or at very least initiate these actions.


Concluding points from the workshop: ● The 5 categories are not mutually exclusive and there are crossovers between them. That is why it is important to not look at them as dichotomous categories. ● We need a working financial model. There is a need for management and administration at the beginning, and that needs finance. ● While the Facebook sites work for now, they are just the starting point. A website is needed for people to use, and one that is interactive and encourages co-creation ● Start small and then build it up over time. We should still focus on the bigger picture, but we need the basic elements to get it going. Otherwise, like many other networks, the EPN will remain stagnant. ● Define the parameters of placemaking (in the charter) so everyone can sign their agreement.


Financial models and real estate The workshop focused on financial models of placemaking and the role of the real estate sector. Discussions were about strategies, and how to keep the creative and cultural sector in areas that are developing where rents and costs of living are rising. Inspirational presentations by Theo Stauttener, expert on financial models from Stad2 (Utrecht) and Wendy Rowden from 42st Development Corporation (New York) followed by an interactive workshop, ​facilitated by Rozina Spinnoy from BIDs Belgium and Ragnar Lund from Centre for the Future of Places, on the financial models behind creative placemaking initiatives in area management and development. Fastighetsägarna was an important sponsor for this workshop and their Head of Urban Development and Society ​Helena Olsson (Stockholm) was also actively involved in designing the workshop. from left to right: Wendy Rowden, Theo Stauttener, Rozina Spinnoy, Ragnar Lund and Helena Olsson

Different financial models and value creation through placemaking were discussed with representatives from real estate sector, municipalities, cultural and creative entities and placemakers. Having a shared vision and language makes it easier to discuss upfront how to finance placemaking activities. Different tools and strategies for creating a healthy mix in areas and ways to generate and keep value in neighbourhoods in the long run were discussed. Some points from the workshop and examples of tools / models for financing placemaking: ●

● ●

Alternative investment funds – private investors and banks that evaluate projects based on their cultural and social performance instead of only financial performance. Keeps rents low for activities that add value in the long term and therefore ensure a healthy mix and a stopping point for gentrification. Pre-development funds – short-term loans for build outs for artist studios, market or below market rate and loans are repaid by collecting rents from tenants. Business Improvement Districts / “Plinth company” – that organise and keep a mix during area transformation. Tenants that bring in the cultural and creative and social activities in the areas may generate less rents but increase the value and rate of return of real estate in the long term. Less vacancies since owners can always try new activities. Relocating city makers but keeping them in the area, pioneers can stay and develop in the area.

Key factors to enable a good collaboration between citizens, property developers and owners, business organisation and municipalities to create a shared value in connection to area development: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Willingness to compromise Rules of engagement Long term commitment Idea of the future horizon Process to facilitate - Neutral facilitator Projects should be driven by a common shared need Shared collection of stories, citizen perspective needs to be understood and considered 18

● ● ● ● ●

Everybody should be treated as an expert Reliable model for finance What lies in the middle? Everyone has something to win Engage the future citizens? A leader with vision

● ● ● ●

Generating and keeping value in neighbourhoods. Ownership of buildings is key and lease of land Long-term contract Measurable social values

Financial models and other tools that can be used for collaboration and their pros and cons: ● Property based assets (trusts – community land trusts), using the value development of properties in an area to fund new initiatives in those areas ● Various Business improvement district rules (Town / city centres) ways of organising, curating and financing activities that create a buzz and attraction in areas and pulling together resources to finance activities that are reflected in real estate value and increased business as well as social well-being and lively neighbourhoods. ● Land value capture (forms and measurement) ways of capturing value increase in real estate and business owners and transferring it back to those creating value through placemaking and cultural activities. ● Start-ups through venture capital funds ● Social enterprise -> Deep place methodology ● Social benefits ● Well being ● Difficult to evaluate and measure social impact and therefore not easy to link investments to social and cultural performance. ● Crowdfunding, philanthropy and social impact funds to support placemaking Creative strategies to provide for non-profits, cultural organisations and artists to stay in areas where rents and the cost of living are raising:

How can placemaking create business value? ● ● ● ● Curate

Business improvement districts Developer input + city Philanthropic Tax breaks Buzz



Business case of placemaking: ● ●

Social return is recognised but not measured and evaluated Communicate what is the added value in the economic system

“Places that matter perform better” Investing in placemaking can have a great impact in value, image and long-term performance of an area and its real estate. The return of outputs are also: ● ● ●

Social value Welfare savings Future pipeline

Formula for creating long term business value:


● ● ●

Talent attraction + retention Reputation of developers Civil perception

Municipality / City

interest and ownership

The workshop presented examples and experiences from different countries on how placemaking can add value to areas as well as strategies to keep placemakers in the areas. By understanding how placemaking and culture create value in areas, it is easier to involve developers in an early stage. Examples of organisations and management models such as “plinth companies” developed in Holland and different forms of alternative investment funds and loans for area development. Links for further information:

Placemaking Facilitation Game

The workshop aimed at experimenting with the usage of the ​Placemaking Facilitation Game as a tool to support the development of a hypothetical placemaking process and more precisely, the enhancement of community engagement and interest management. During the workshop two decks of cards - ‘Persona Cards’ (10 archetypes of the local community) and ‘Case Cards’, were used. Based on them, each group had to resolve multiple practical situations (opportunity, challenge, issue) by drawing connections between the personas and outlining specific engagement strategies. Then each solution was presented to all participants, providing the latter with the chance for reflection.

Todor Kesarovski Designer & placemaker at |In|Formal, with background in urban design and social sciences


Angel Bondov Urbanist & placemaker at |In|Formal, with background in urban planning and GIS

Laska Nenova Founder & project manager at BG Be Active Association, with background in financial management and social activism

It is essential to emphasise that the concrete goal of the ​Placemaking Facilitation Game workshop, which was conducted in Stockholm, was to draw a specific reflection on the potentials of the tool. During the session it was validated that the game is an effective tool for professionals to share experiences and reflect upon each other’s practices, even when they are developed in different contexts. Furthermore, provoked by the discussions of the specific cases through the workshop, the participants already tended to co-create drafts of practical engagement strategies. Except used by enclosed circle of placemaking professionals, the game can be also executed with a higher mixture of participants, such as citizens, community leaders, real-estate developers and local authorities etc. This will allow the game to logically extend its topics of interest to gentrification and segregation, depending on the concrete initiative for which will be used. However, it is important to note that in order to achieve meaningful results the ‘Persona Cards’ and the ‘Case Cards’ should be appropriately adjusted. The core objective of the ​Placemaking Facilitation Game is to ease the inclusion and engagement of the local communities in the renovation process of public spaces. The game is aiming at linking the diverse community interests and managing the whole engagement process as efficient as possible. When used locally, it can support placemakers and authorities (but also citizens) to clarify particular strategies for supporting positive community inclusion. On the other hand, if used with external participants from different contexts the tool can serve as an excellent mean to share successful placemaking practices and compare cases.


Inclusiveness The Inclusiveness workshop, held on thursday afternoon, was about how to make sure that everyone feels at home in the city. With cities changing rapidly, whereby areas sometimes go from rundown to upcoming overnight alienation can occur with existing populations. Cities also become ever more diverse, with expats, refugees, and migration to the cities. And even without all these changes, being truly inclusive is a challenge. Women, kids, elderly, religious people all experience the public realm in different ways. The session was hosted by Minouche Besters from STIPO. In this workshop we had three presentations, each reflecting a different perspective on the topic. Maria stressed the fact that placemaking is political and that we should be aware of that. The way we design our interventions has effect on who and what in public space. Whether we provide childcare or not has an influence on the number of mums and or families participating in the process. Do we walk the extra mile, do we think of long term implications, those are important questions. Rebecca Rubin, from White architekter, remarked that in Sweden after the age of 8 suddenly the number of girls playing outside dropped steeply. The balance became more like 80% boys and 20% girls. In other western countries the situation could probably be the same. She showed the examples of how the outcomes for their public space design changed profoundly when they worked only with girls in their focus groups: more secluded spaces, more diverse sitting, WiFi at the seating areas, possible to change style space themselves. Minouche showed how their research recently made them come to the preliminary conclusion that there are three ways to provide for inclusion in the public realm: one size, special fit (public event is the same for everyone, but you actively take away all obstacles that might prevent people from participating, relating to like affordability, religious regulations and such), special size special fit (activity or special specifically designed for special group, to empower them, like haram swimming, chess tables for older men, girls space) and one size fits all, those activities or areas, often involving water, fire or food, that attract everyone. Creating these types of inclusions requires a focus on hardware (the physics of the space), the software (programming) and the org ware (regulations, financing, coalition). Juliette closed the plenary with her take on gentrification. Placemaking is often said to cause gentrification. It’s actually the other way around, proper placemaking can prevent the downside from development to take place, by involving people, taking heritage in consideration and working collectively on good places. She gave some much needed context to the whole discussion of gentrification by going back to the origins. After this kickoff it was time for all the experts in the room to engage in the conversation. In 3 big tables, each hosted by one of the speakers, we elaborated further on the outlines of the presentations. It was good to find that much what was said resonated really well and gave structure to the discussion on working on inclusion. People had many additional examples that strengthened the ideas as many questions that deepen the thinking. For Stipo, hosting the session, all shared ideas and input are a great resource to include in their ongoing investigation on ‘ inclusive public realm, making everyone feel at home’. A big thanks again to all participants involved.


Co-operative Cities Maarten Desmet is a trained architect currently working at Endeavour, a firm focusing on open access innovation for stakeholders. He is also the co-founder of the sustainability service, For Good, an app that shows your personal co2 footprint and with easy steps to reduce it. In his PhD research at TU Delft he focuses on how to translate Gross National Happiness (GNH) into a planning approach. Maarten is a member of the Re:Kreators network More information: Presenters Christian Grauvogel ​has an academic background in urban anthropology and philosophy. He is one of the initiators of the re:Kreators network – a European network of civic society organisations engaged in cooperative area development. From 2013 - 2016, he was chairman of the Mörchenpark association in Berlin, an organisation which ensures public participation in the large-scale urban development project “Holzmarkt” and which promotes cultural and environmental education. Furthermore, he has participated in various European urban development and public policy cooperation projects such as “SeiSMiC” and “New Europe – Cities in Transition.”​ - ​​ - ​

Jaakko Blomberg​ is an urban activist, city-maker, producer, artist and researcher from Helsinki, Finland. He specialises in co-creation, social movements, placemaking and urban art. Jaakko has been making many community-based events, which use urban spaces in new ways and create social cohesion. At the moment he works mostly in his Second Thought Placemaking Agency and Helsinki Urban Art association, which introduces new ways of using urban space and solving social problems by means of art and activism.

Joost Beunderman​ is the director of 00, a collaborative studio of architects, strategic designers, programmers, social scientists, economists and urban designers practicing design beyond its traditional borders. Additionally, he is the co-founder of Impact hub in Islington & Brixton, a global


network of collaborators. As a mission-driven business incubator and new civic asset, Impact Hub offers a resources, inspiration, and collaboration opportunities for participants to grow.​ - ​​ - ​

We see in many ways, that our collective challenge to work on the democratisation of cities means the deep social justice questions of our time are as much about democratising people’s ability to be productive and creative and part of building the cities, alongside the traditional discussions around for example poverty. How can citizens and professionals organise themselves to co-jointly/cooperatively develop cities? What tools are needed to support citymakers to have more impact/to upscale? These questions were central in the interactive workshop, looking at how to improve the tools that are currently in use.

“We realised that, when you communicate in a very open way about a building and the development, then you attract this knowledge that is present in your city.” Building collective capacity for systemic change: align placemaking strategies with economic cycles, capacity building and education between professionals, online platforms with open innovation, curating organisational structures to unlock potential. Mapping actors and stakeholders (grassroots, public and private): identifying the knowledge of actors & their interests, link these directly to SDGs, with the private sector take advantage of CSR policies, and knowing what makes stakeholders happy. The layers of cooperative networks

The Re:Kreators network The Re:Kreators network is a network related to the EPN network. A number of organisations in Europe working on social and participative urban area development in which placemaking is one of the tools to make areas work.

More info ​​.


From the manifesto of the Re:Kreators network


1. ​We, the members of re:Kreators community, are people and initiatives who want to enable sustainable, social and participative urban area development following fair principles. We believe in a way of living in the city that is inspiring, affordable and just. We create thoughtful, fun, meaningful and inclusive places that lift the spirits. We create ruptures and alternatives in people’s imagination about how a city could be, through space and collective ownership models. 2. ​We create value: increase of mental, physical and emotional usability of quality urban space. We use existing resources, energy and qualities. We look for true, permanent change and commitment. We are open source. We share our knowledge to inspire others. 3. ​We see urban development in the interest of the people who live there and work in community-based, participative and inclusive ways. Diverse groups feel at home in and feel ownership over our places – mentally, emotionally and in the say they have in the future of the area.

Objectives of the re:Kreators Association To connect To create a European platform to connect, inspire and multiply re:Kreators around European cities. To improve the established re:Kreator projects. To develop sustainable structures among the partners of the network, and share them, open source, to help new projects come about through shared thinking. To make re:Kreators’ know-how and experience accessible to others. To strengthen To make re:Kreators’ position throughout Europe stronger, among others by driving interest in the values (social, cultural, environmental, economical) of re:Kreators initiatives. To make these values more tangible and visible in order to improve understanding and working relations between initiatives and institutions. To act To create a continuous dialogue between stakeholders of urban development and decision makers. To influence the urban agenda of governments locally, nationally and on the EU-level. To improve understanding and working relations between initiatives and institutions. To match with possible investors. To create a permanent network of city makers.



written by the workshop leaders

photo credit: ​Zora Pauliniova


ON-SITE WORKSHOPS Stora Torget, Uppsala How can this square become the “living room” for all people living in or visiting Uppsala? Led by Sander van der Ham & Lottie Stainer (STIPO), Anna Sommardal (City of Uppsala), with support of the Uppsala Kommun. KTH Torget, Stockholm “How to make KTH Torget the central node within the campus, where more facilities in the future will make the campus more attractive and city-like.” Led by Ragnar Lund (KTH / Tertius), Yuri Impens (STIPO), Melanie Hierl (KTH), supported by KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Akademiska Hus. Färgfabriken / Lövholmen, Stockholm Redeveloping a historical area whilst keeping some of the current creative energy. Led by Jan Rydén (Artist & Urban developer), Jeroen Laven & Siënna Veelders (STIPO), Olof van der Wal (SKAR) and Bert Determann (Theatre of Rotterdam). Sätra, Stockholm How to create more spaces and an inclusive urban development process specifically for young girls? Led by Minouche Besters & Giota Zacharidou (STIPO), supported by Stockholm Stad, Ahnström & Pyk and UCA Architects. Peter Myndes Backe / Södermalm, Stockholm Developing a square with aspects of culture and art, and which (financial) models can create a durable placemaking and management process? Led by Hans Karssenberg & IJsbrand Heeringa (STIPO), Anna Lebisch (Landskapslaget), Shaghayegh Tavakoli (Tyréns) & Frank Schipper (Dutch Embassy).


Stora Torget, Uppsala

In the upcoming years, the municipality has decided to remove the bus stop in this central city square. Stora Torget, known to the locals as “bus square”, is dominated by mobility. The vision is to create a vibrant and lively square where people can stop and relax. There is currently a need to get the local stakeholders together and working on a plan for placemaking. One of the main concerns is that, without the bus stop, would people feel the need to frequent this space? Without a bus stop, this will leave a lot of extra space on the square in search for a new identity and function. The goal of the day was to go into the space and get a feel for the daily activities: how do people move in the space? How do they use the square? Where are these opportunities for placemaking? And visualising the space without the bus stop. This is something that the placegame and city at eye level game really helped to achieve. Secondly, by bringing multiple stakeholders to the discussion, we wanted to analyse the potential for the square and to listen to the many voices (ideas, concerns) regarding the future of the square. By bringing stakeholders to the table, it can engage them and create the sense of urgency for action that is needed in cases like this. During the on-site workshop, we had approximately 15 participants from the conference: a mix of urban professionals, placemakers and students in urban planning and architecture. Alongside the participants, there were real estate developers, municipality workers and entrepreneurs from Uppsala. The group really engaged with the project and there was a sense of ownership by the end. Everyone left the workshop feeling like we had done something. We also left the workshops whilst the municipality workers, real estate developers and entrepreneurs continued to discuss the projects, arranging when to have another meeting. Proposed Visions ​(long-term) 1) A sense of ownership of the square by the local entrepreneurs 2) The square to have its own identity that is also connected to its local heritage 3) Improve the feeling of safety for everyone


Proposed Solutions ​(short-term) 1) Having multi-functional regular events in the square to connect many stakeholders with each other in the neighbourhoods. Families, students and local businesses can all co-create and partake in events such as live music concerts, pop-up flea markets and yoga classes. 2) Encourage the local businesses to connect to each other and create a sense of community, for example, through sharing terrace spaces on the ‘sunny side’ of the square. This can reduce costs per business and encourages everyone to maintain the area. For colder weather costs can be shared for outdoor heating and blankets too. 3) Seasonal placemaking through temporary uses of space depending on the time of year. Easy and cheap to implement keeps it flexible and low risk. “Temporality” or “experimentation” is an easier way to get around strict planning regulations, and these sorts of things can be organised through social media community groups, advertised through hashtags printed on shop windows. After the placegame and city at eye level game, each group then spent 20 minutes creating agenda for things that could happen in the square between the months of april – september. This enabled us to think forward, but also to consider the seasonal changes that can affect placemaking. This links nicely to one of the aims in the Uppsala strategy vision. Comparing notes and discussing highlighted common ideas such as adding plants and green spaces, nice seating to replace the bus stop, and adding nice lighting to make the area look attractive but also feel safer during the evenings. While these ideas are not ground-breaking, it was the added ‘ownership’ factor where creative ideas came out. For example, using local plants also used in the gardens nearby to connect the square to its surroundings and local culture, and encouraging the restaurant owners to have a common seating so customers can all mix together, ensuring that the space would be well maintained by all.


KTH Torget, Stockholm

report by: Melanie Hierl, Ragnar Lund & Yuri Impens

KTH Torget is located on the main campus of KTH Royal Institute of Technology. The area is currently a collection of buildings and open spaces, most importantly the main road going through the campus. In the new campus plan, this area is designated as a central node for activities on campus, and as a connection to the city. The area has a massive student presence and therefore can be rather lively, and there are also nice green areas. However, there is a busy road that cuts through the middle of the area, and the square is surrounded by office buildings. The goal for the day was to answer the question: ​“How to make KTH Torget the central node within the campus, where more facilities in the future will make the campus more attractive and city-like.” The ​goals were therefore to find ways, in both short and long term, to realise this goal. There were close to 30 participants from the conference ‘Cities for All’ present at the placegame at the KTH Torget. These were a mix of people from different countries, and different professional backgrounds. Many were in some way related to educational institutions. There were also a number of students from KTH itself, some of them actually living on-campus. ​The students could give some personal insights on the actual use of the space by students and the students’ needs. The atmosphere was good and constructive. After two presentations by Akademiska Hus & KTH, and STIPO, the goals were clear and the crowd was energised to get to work on the different locations. They came up with many ideas for each location, and another hour would have easily been filled with ideas of how to materialise these ideas. Proposed Visions​ (short-term) 1. Providing electricity for food trucks, and placing them in a different way so that they create more a place without noise 2 Placing more benches in sunny spots 3 Getting rid of (some of) the parked cars along the main street 4 ​Prioritising pedestrians over cars; by colouring the street

Proposed Solutions​ (long-term)

1 Making use the buildings with other functions now (Akademiska Hus, Värmeverket etc) to give them function open to the public 2 Making use of natural elements such as rocks, to create highlights in a park/square 3 Placing the road on the current railroad tracks. 4 ​Improve lighting during night 5 ​Install “reasons” to go to the place; open the place to the public not only to the campus; the place as a part of the city 6 Activating student ownership of the area; connecting the students between the various disciplines and getting them to work together.


Färgfabriken / Lövholmen, Stockholm

Färgfabriken has for many years been a cultural hub in Stockholm. In the near future this hub will be surrounded by a newly built urban area, with among others many houses. How can Färgfabriken and the new development strengthen each other? How can the area become an even better functioning social cultural hub, a destination for people from all over Stockholm, while at the same time stay attractive for the current cultural users. The Färgfabriken case is related to the Schouwburgplein in Rotterdam. The Schouwburgplein is a cultural hub where cultural organizations, residents, entrepreneurs and owners work together to program the underused public space on the square. The idas is that a great functioning square is not just important for the cultural organisations around the square (that are visited by close 2,5 mln people a year), but also other stakeholders. With over a 100.000 dedicated visitors to the programs on the square every year, the semi-permanent furniture, flying grass carpet and stage, the financial and non-financial added value of the square is getting more and more clear for a variety of parties in Rotterdam. This varies from investors who want to make the square the most sustainable square in the world and use it as their showcase, to residents who use the square for local festivities. In the Färgfabriken workshop approximately 40 international experts and local stakeholders used the world cafe format to discuss a variety of subjects. How to connect to the area and the city If we want to make sure the newly built area and Färgfabriken are inclusive we need to talk about the local stakeholders and how can they become co-makers? This means involving them in the development of the plan, both during the development phase (with temporary measures) and permanent. Among the groups we discussed were schools, families with children, cultural parties in Fargfabriken and others. Cultural heritage experts like Hampus Busk are more than willing to help and think about opportunities for the area, Examples like Schouwburgplein, but also examples from the Re:Kreators network like Holzmarkt in Berlin, show how this co-makership can lead to great new concepts.


Financial and organizational models How to find models to keep comakers involved in a permanent way? If you don’t only want people’s ideas, but also keep them on board there are several ways to make them partner. For instance: a.

In the programming of the area (programming public space, plinths): The example of the Schouwburgplein where an association programs the square is a way to keep people sustainably involved. b. In the development of the area: Partnership to develop sites, buildings etc in the area. Co-ownership of buildings, functions on the water, playgrounds etc. Giving space to functions with a socio-cultural spin off for the area can improve the financial and social value of the area. Financial models as were discussed during the conference (financial session) can be used c. Maintenance and local businesses: Make parties partner for the maintenance of the area. For instance; hire people from the area to take care of maintenance of public space and buildings. But also use other coalition opportunities; get your accountant from the area, give local businesses an opportunity to become involved d. pitches. In ZOHO in Rotterdam existing tenants can co-select new parties who want to move to the area. This led to a faster development and to a stronger social connection in the area. Building on cultural heritage The Färgfabriken area is a spectaculair industrial place. Build on the qualities that are there, both in temporary and permanent sense. Connecting to European knowledge There are quite some areas like Fargfabriken all over Europe. The European Placemaking Network can help to connect the knowledge in these areas. Also the Re:Kreators network can be useful. Temporary and permanent features It does not have to be perfect from the start. Use temporary functions to experiment for permanent solutions. Temporary buildings (learn from many tiny houses examples, and others), temporary programs etc. Concluding: Use the potential, work with the comakers Concluding: we found eachother in admiring the qualities of the area, the potential for existing parties in the area and new parties. There are many comakers who want to be an ambassador and share ideas to make the area better. the parties developing the area want to take the next step and involve the co-makers and making the plans even better.


Sätra, Stockholm

On the Friday morning, a 'Placegame' took place with about 25 people. During this active placegame, based on the placemaking methodology of Project for Public Spaces, arose an image of the opportunities, ambitions, but also the obstacles that residents, entrepreneurs, shop owners from the municipality shered. The main goal was to find out how we can develop the area more inclusive for young girls. Moreover what actions and activities can be implemented to make it safe, attractive and livable. Participants separated into 7 locations near the central station of Sätra to exchange ideas and develop plans. This resulted in numerous concrete actions in a short and in a long term.

The centre of the area was developed at 60’s. The municipality at the time working on the development of housing and the improvises of the public spaces (parks, squares, etc) with sustainable and social perspectives. The goal is to develop the place cooperating with the locals and the people who interact with the place daily. Many people from the area participated in the placegame: residents, entrepreneurs, property owners, municipality and planners from all over Europe. The atmosphere was nice and there was a lot of energy. People felt comfortable as they


all wanted to put some effort to change the area. It was a multicultural group of people, as a lot of them were natively from another country and lived temporarily there. Another group of people came to the place for the first time as they were participants from the conference. The placegame took part in 7 small locations of the area that each group analyzed a small piece of the larger one area. Subsequently, the teams were challenged for their interventions for the location into a plan, and design their ideas for the short and the long term. By sharing the plans with each other, an image emerges of the area as a whole. After the participants in the placegame designed and presented their ideas about the spots outside they were asked to put stickers on the map of the whole area regarding the: ● places that are already good and attractive (green) ● promising places that earn short-term investments (orange) ● unattractive places that require a long-term approach (red) The map on the right reflects the experience of the participants’ placegame. The area in the front and in the back of the metro station/ shopping centre got most of the stickers (red, orange, green). There are also some stickers in the location of the park. The groups came up with all sorts of plans for these places to join get started. Long-term ● Make friendly facades/open the facades of the shops ● Create meeting places ● Moving the parking of cars for bicycle and people Short-term ● Encourage vacant spaces to be used by the community for activities ● Lighting in the park and involve children in the maintenance of the park (​painting, planting etc)

● ● ●

Weekly markets Free wi-fi and public toilets Use the huge empty walls to advertise local information about events and directions to nearby amenities


Peter Myndes Backe / Södermalm, Stockholm

Report by IJsbrand Heeringa, STIPO​, w ​ orkshop was hosted at the Dutch Embassy Peter Myndes backe is a small square behind the Dutch embassy in Södermalm, Stockholm. It is located right next to one of the most popular shopping streets in Stockholm, Götgatan. The central location of the square gives it a high potential to become a vibrant city plaza. Yet, the square is unused for most of the year. The local community on the square - the embassy, the inhabitants and several companies - has attempted several times to activate the square. Apart from food bikes that come to the square every week, the community has not been able to organise any continuous programming for the square. The goal of the day was to investigate if and how this situation might be changed. The key objective was to assess what kind of programming would be desirable for the stakeholders on the square, and what type of organisational and financial models could be used to sustain that. The program of the city visit was separated into three parts. We kicked off with a short introduction by Frank Schipper from the embassy. Followed by several presentations about the background of the square and about potential models for the organisation of the square. In the second part of the event we separated into six smaller groups and discussed a series of questions relating to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The physical structure of the square The inclusiveness of the square Winter placemaking The ambitions for the square The role of art on the square The potential financial models for the square

Finally, the groups presented and discussed their findings. We closed with some final recommendations and comments. The city visit was attended by 30 people from the conference and 10 more people that had a special interest in the square. The was a wide variety of backgrounds in the room from graffiti artists to real-estate developers. The atmosphere during the event was energised, the groups were able to come up with loads of creative ideas and solutions for the square. Below follows a summary of the conclusions of the day according to the six questions. The physical structure of the square One recommendation with regards to the physical appearance of the square was to create connection to the beautiful landscape garden of the Dutch embassy. For instance, by opening the garden for the public, or to recreate some elements from the garden on the square. One of the challenges for the square in terms of the physical structure is the dead plinth of the apartment buildings opposite the embassy. It was suggested to invited graffiti artists to transform the wall into an art piece, and thus change the negative presence of the blind plinth into a positive contribution to the appearance of the square. Finally, the lack of direct sunshine on the square was transformed to an opportunity. The lack of natural light would make the square a unique place to host outdoor cinemas in the summer. The inclusiveness of the square One suggestion was to transform the square into a temporary exhibition space, where local art collectives could demonstrate their work. Another potential activity on the square would be a farmer’s market, where local products from in and around Stockholm could be sold to the local community. The proximity of several schools and day-care facilities also creates the opportunity to host activities for children. 35

Finally, it was suggested that the anonymous identity of the square could be used to connect to anonymous organisations, for example: friends Oriana Winter placemaking During the winter months when there is little light in the city streets, artful lighting could be an opportunity to attract people to the square. Snow and ice were also identified as opportunities for the square. Getting rid of the snow is a huge issue for the city. Collecting some of that excess snow on the square could be a strategy to create activities during winter time such as a mountain bike track made from the excess snow, an art exhibition where artists would only be allowed to use the snow on the square or installations for kids to play on. Another way to create activities on the square in the winter months would be to use the offices spaces of the surrounding companies. Each company could be tasked to host a lunch once a month to create connections between the users of the square. The ambitions for the square During the workshop the ambitions of the different stakeholders on the square became clear. The residents expressed their desire to keep the square safe and quiet, especially at night since there was a lot of illicit activity during the night. They also expressed their desire to use the square as a place to meet and interact with others. Finally, the recognised that placemaking activities on the square could also be beneficial to the value of their real estate. The companies around the square expressed their interest in a neutral meeting place for their employees. Many of the companies on the square are engaged in similar activities and interaction among employees could be a way to find future partnerships. The city of Stockholm was interested in the square to use it as a test location, where it would be possible to try out different placemaking strategies to find out whether they had potential on a larger scale. Art prototyping Art was an also part of the discussion on the day. It was found that art could be part of a creative strategy to get people to engage with the square. Here it was also mentioned that initiative should be allowed to take time. The potential financial models for the square During the discussions, it became clear that the initial idea to establish a BID would not be a smart strategy for the square. A more flexible organisation would be called for, perhaps a trust fund where everybody pays as much as the can afford. It would also be essential to establish the principles of use for the square. One of the core recommendations that concluded the day was that a stable financial model might not be the priority for the square. It might be better to first experiment with different activities for a while, in such a way it would be possible to assess which what works and what does not. The later it would be possible to start thinking about models for organisation.




Friday Workshops First round Innovation Quarters Using innovation approaches in residential areas Led by Pärtel-Peeter Pere (Future Place Leadership), supported by Eline Hoogendijk (City of Amsterdam) & Joost Beunderman (00). Gender-Inclusive Public Spaces Increasing equality and driving change through gender-inclusive public spaces Led by Sally Kneeshaw (URBACT Gender equal cities), supported by Ania Rok (URBACT Programme expert), Linda Gustafsson (City of Umeå), Jaimie (Council of European Municipalities and Regions) Cornelis Uittenbogaard (Stiftelsen Tryggare Sverige). Walkable Cities Using personas to talk about public space and walkability Led by Kate Milosavljevic (Oslo and Akerhus University College), supported by Helene Gallis (Nabolagshager) Emiel Arends (City of Rotterdam), Daniel Dooghe (Deltametropool), Tanja Congiu & Valentina Talu & Giulia Tola (University of Sassari). Second round Gentrification & Liveliness of Small Cities & Towns Identifying the relationship between gentrification, liveability and placemaking Led by Wessel Badenhorst, supported by Tina Vilfan (Author of the study Urban regeneration of old town cores), Peter Moskowitz (Author of “How to Kill a City”), Juliet Kahne (PPS) & Michael Mehaffy (Research network Future of Places). Cultural Life in Newly Built Areas Using knowledge from existing areas for developing newly built areas Led by Siënna Veelders (STIPO) and Jan Rydén (Artist & Urban developer), supported by Hampus Busk (Sejda), Bert Determann (Theatre of Rotterdam), Jaakko Blomberg (Urban activist), Nathalie Camus (Arts council of Wales) & Ruth Essex (Regeneration consultant). Kids Designing public spaces with children in mind Led by Martine Sluijs (Pip & Partners), supported by Zora Pauliniova (Placemaker & architect), Reini Stadler (CIVITTA Romania), Marisa Denker & Neasa Ni Bhriain (Playful City).


Innovation Quarters The Innovation quarters workshops at Place for All (#places4all) conference in Stockholm in April was about how to make new residential areas into a mixed-use place, that would come to life and become attractive. The innovation quarter or district is created by 1. Economic assets such as firms, institutions and organisations 2. Physical assets such as public and privately-owned spaces — buildings, open spaces, streets, other infrastructure 3. Networking assets such as relationships between actors, the potential to generate ideas. The question was – how to use the innovation quarter approach on a (predominantly) residential area, to boost its attractiveness and liveliness? The workshop presenters were:​ ​Pärtel-Peeter Pere, CEO of Future Place Leadership, a Stockholm based place management company, was leading the workshop. Eline Hoogendijk, a placemaker/programme manager at Amsterdam city/Zuidas innovation quarter & Joost Beunderman from Project 00, a London based architecture ​and strategy company. Eline Hoogendijk Amsterdam City | @ElineAmsterdam ​ Joost Beunderman Project 00 | ​@​joostbeunderman ​ Pärtel-Peeter Pere Future Place Leadership | @placeleadership ​ We focused on an example of Barkaby: ​​ , a new area being built just on the outskirts of Stockholm. 18 000 new apartments, 140 quarters and 10 000 new jobs are planned. On paper it seems on track. However, how to ensure with placemaking tools that it theory and practise will not differ? Workshop groups (5 tables of 5-6 people) came up with interesting discussions. Among them, the highlight was having IKEA involved. Since Barkaby is close to IKEA, being an outskirts area, why not make use of that and be true to the identity? If IKEA would be willing to cooperate somehow in helping to install (in a pop-up fashion) outdoor furniture, lighting etc to make a public space become more alive, that would be a good foundation to attracting people, even driving some economic activity. A key highlight from presentations came from Joost:


Eline showed how Zuidas in Amsterdam has worked with programming the place, from foodtrucks to art, greenery, plinths and liveliness 24/7. The latter point was used during workshops as well and that message seemed to be well delivered. Links for more information: s4all%20Future%20Place%20Leadership.pdf?dl=0


Gender-Inclusive Public Spaces As part of URBACT’s new initiative, Gender Equal Cities, this inaugural workshop challenged participants to think about what works to create gender-equity in public space and the obstacles that limit inclusion in cities. Women, men, children and other marginalised groups can experience public urban space very differently. The workshop celebrated gender sensitive policy making, highlighting both enduring challenges and good practices to build cities that are safe and vibrant for everyone. Bringing together experts and interested-parties from across Europe, the workshop included expert presentations as well as discussion to generate solutions. The workshop began with an introduction to the concept of Gender Equal Cities by Sally Kneeshaw, the Programme Expert from the URBACT programme, before presentations from the following city practitioners and urbanists:

Linda Gustafsson Gender Equality Officer, Umea, Sweden. URBACT Good Practice Gender Mainstreaming.

Cornelius Uittenbogaard Safer Sweden Foundation

Sally Kneeshaw Gender Equal Cities Programme Expert


This was the first consultation for URBACT on the topic of gender inclusive public space and the discussions were creative and fruitful. Whilst we acknowledged many of the difficulties faced by women and marginalised groups in public spaces including fear of assault, and male-dominated and designed public spaces, we were keen to prioritise impact and solutions. Our key learnings included that women and girls must be included more in every stage of urban space design and that means re-thinking consultation and co-design processes to be welcoming and relevant. Monitoring of public space needs to take into account intersectionality using disaggregated data relating not only to gender but ethnicity, age, class, sexuality, and disability. Cities need to factor in both women-friendly and women-only spaces. Gender sensitive planning and the principles of universal design can play an important role in guaranteeing spatial justice. The challenges of displacement and gentrification are distinctly gendered: women and men experience them differently. Most of all, participants stressed that education and awareness are vital, and that these conversations need to be amplified at local level. The vision of a gender equal city is everyone’s responsibility, and in everyone’s interest. When we strive for great places, with a heightened awareness of how to include and co-design for all, we can make a real difference. To achieve Sustainable Development Goal 11: Cities for all, we must foreground Sustainable Development Goal 5: Gender Equality in all Place making programmes. The workshop highlighted that taking intersectional approaches to gender into account when designing and animating public space in the city core is crucial. The participatory processes that inform placemaking can learn from the principles of feminist urban planning to bring more equity into public space. Linda Gustafsson, Gender Equality Officer in UMEA Sweden puts it best:

“​A sustainable city can only be built together with those who will live in it. All planning should be permeated by openness, democracy and equality. We will develop the city and the public space so that everyone, women and men, children, young people and people with disability, can participate on equal terms. That leads to a city for everyone.” More information:


Walkable Cities The walkable, hang out-able city – workshop that iterated the concepts developed at the morning field trips in Stockholm (minus KTH campus, as that was more specific in character). Helene Gallis​, Owner Manager Nabolagshager (centre for cultivation, urban ecological innovation and green local community involvement) Emiel Arends​, Urban Planner, municipality of Rotterdam ​Find presentation here! David Dooghe​, designer and researcher, University of Antwerp. ​Find presentation here! Valentina Talu​, Tanja Congiu, and Giulia Tola; Urban and transport planners, TaMaLaCá(university spin off startup architecture studio), Universita di Sassari, Sassari City Council. ​Find presentation here​!

Our main purpose with the workshop was to bring new perspectives for placemaking work, involving what can be traditionally considered undesirable personas. When we think of ‘cities for all’, who comprises the ‘all’ that we speak of and how does this affect our conceptualisation of spaces? Where is the place of vulnerable marginalised groups in our public spaces, and how can we design great spaces within cities that give place to everyone. We have a number of tools at our disposal as agents of change, but considering empathy (by experiencing a perspective we usually consider outside of our target audience) allows us to broaden our approach to green spaces, public squares, and pedestrian streets to critically examine who our ‘all’ is. Focus on local site-specific interventions, quick wins with incremental change, co-creation of inclusionary flexible, adaptable spaces together with citizens. Persona-based toolkit for design – (first draft). Real-world examples of spaces to iterate from. Presentations from a variety of previous cross sectorial projects at various scales, (municipal, district, local/street) all around placemaking connecting to walkability.


Gentrification and Liveliness of Small Cities and Towns Report by Wessel Badenhorst, Session Moderator

The session focused on three trends namely: ●

The crisis in affordable housing and displacement exacerbated by gentrification of city neighbourhoods especially in larger cities;

The emigration from smaller cities to larger cities especially in the case of young people seeking better opportunities; and

The value of community-led placemaking to create local attachment and promote social cohesion both in large and small cities.

Three presentations were followed by an ‘Ideas Café’ where participants shared their ideas on these topics and specifically on Placemaking to support attachment to place in towns and neighbourhoods. The presenters were: Michael Mehaffy is the Executive Director of the ​Sustasis Foundation​. In the title of his presentation, he asked the question: ​In an era of rapid urbanisation, how does placemaking address gentrification? What are the tools?

Juliet Kahne is the Education and Events Manager of the ​Project for Public Spaces​. Her presentation focused on: ​Placemaking, gentrification and small towns​.

Tina Vilfan is an architect originally from Slovenia, now based in Copenhagen. Her presentation is titled: ​Revitalisation of old town cores with the introduction of temporary usage of space ​and is based on her research in four large towns in Slovenia.

Peter Moskowitz is a journalist and the author of ​How to Kill a City​. He wrapped up the session with his comments on the presentations and the ideas from participants.


Michael Mehaffy emphasised in his presentation the attainment of optimal diversity in the development of a place or neighbourhood, as advocated by Jane Jacobs. A situation where new wealth displaces existing communities to create new enclaves is the outcome of unrestrained gentrification. He raised the question if the focus on the revitalisation of the city centre/downtown diverts attention from the need for a networked city where there are secondary nodes of urban development in suburbs, thus creating a polycentric city which he argues is more sustainable on different levels and a way to alleviate gentrification pressures on the city. Juliet Kahne explained in her presentation the insidiousness of gentrification which is only evidenced after several stages of new developments over a long period of time. The first stage often is perceived justifiable as an ‘injection’ of capital in a neighbourhood with a history of low investment and decaying infrastructure. The process however continues with stages where the neighbourhood changes to meet the needs of the new high-income groups and where more and more old buildings are demolished for new build at a much larger scale, making economic sense but destroying social and cultural fabric. Her contention is that placemaking contributes to the place attachment of the incumbent communities and should support their efforts to maintain the social fabric of the neighbourhood. She also questions if smaller towns can escape the effects of gentrification and states that to her knowledge there is no evidence to suggest that welcoming urban renewal in town centres will stop/turnaround emigration trends. In her research ​Tina Vilfan showed the high levels of empty shops and buildings in the old cores of the towns she investigated. She proposed that instead of inviting large scale gentrification in these town cores, a process of incremental change should be the prevalent strategy. Some of the interventions that she believes can turn around the town centres are to improve the facades of buildings by designing more active frontages, good rhythms and finer details. She also advocates for gradual investment in selected building activities that will improve the ‘eye-catching’ ability of the town centre. Her main thesis is however to be more flexible in the usage of buildings and to allow experimentation with temporary usage, which through a process of trial-and-error will allow the local stakeholders to find new meaning for the buildings in their town centres. Empty spaces should be seen as an opportunity for the quest to make modest interventions with high impacts. During the Ideas Café part of the session, five tables were ‘served’ where participants formulated key questions based on the content of the presentations (aka the menu) and proceeded in discussing these questions. The ideas of participants were captured on Post-Its and posted onto an Ideas Wall (see picture below). Five participants were randomly selected to each develop a thematic response from the ideas on the Wall (See bottom half of Wall).


The five thematic responses based on the ideas from participants can be summarised as follows: ● ●

● ●

Placemakers should be activists and see education of the local community on the effects of gentrification as a high priority. Their actions should include holding workshops in schools and advocating for rent control in affected neighbourhoods. Placemaking activities should help residents to re-discover the local history of their neighbourhood and should actively help those residents who want to defend the heritage elements of their neighbourhood that can be destroyed with unsympathetic new developments. Placemaking should embrace several initiatives to revitalise the town centres/cores such as creating cycle lanes and park & ride facilities to improve the walkability of the centre and to increase the attraction of retail with more specialty and independent shops. Placemaking should be about building the capacity of local communities, especially to learn through experience and sharing with others as well as to regularly communicate about challenges and solutions for neighbourhood development in local newspapers/radio. Placemaking is about activating spaces and therefore making locations more attractive. The type of activities should however be focused on the needs of local communities for example with the organising of public markets and local festivals.

In his concluding remarks, ​Peter Moskowitz reiterated the importance of local activism and continuous civic education processes. The fact that it is difficult to turnaround the situation once a gentrification process has taken its course, means that these communicative actions should be about what priorities residents can agree will improve a neighbourhood without the need for wholesale new developments. Placemaking activities should create the framework for residents to discuss and plan the future of their neighbourhood.

Cultural Life in newly built areas How can the knowledge of local identity and intangible heritage be used for future the development in a sustainable way? In the urban context the diversity of cultures and heritage needs to be adaptive, but people still need to be able to identify with their own neighbourhood. But how does this work within a new context where a whole new layer is added to a small Swedish town? How can you make sure that the new area is for everybody and to prevent the local residents from feeling detached to their area? During the workshop four pitches were presented on different projects in Europe, related to the connecting between culture and communities though an inclusive approach. These pitches were used for the Knivsta project, a soon to be developed area where nothing is there. We ended the workshop with a discussion on how to make sure from the beginning to include not only housing and practical functions in the new town, but also to make sure you include the orgware, to program activities and culture for the new ​and​ old residents. Culture and communities, examples from Rotterdam, Oslo, Wales, Amsterdam and Knivsta We had a diverse group of speakers, working on culture in existing areas in Europe. Bert Determann explained the model of a square as an association from Schouwburgplein, Jaakko Blomberg talked about Kalasatama, a neighbourhood in Oslo and community art project to tell the local story, Ruth Essex and Nathalie Camus presented their project Ideas : People : Places – Crea Cymunedau Cyfoes from Wales, Siënna Veelders showed the process of connecting museums in Amsterdam with the neighbourhood, called ‘Museumstraat’ and Jan Rydén and Hampus Busk, involved in the development of Knivsta, elaborated the development of a future


newly built area close to Stockholm and Uppsala as a cultural programmer and a historian. The nice thing about the different cases is that they showed different processes of how to program culture by and together with local communities to prevent segregation and exclusiveness. All the examples had a direct link to placemaking and community building, so they gave the participants a broader spectrum of programming and placemaking in cities in Europe. The main outcome of the workshop was that people can think of flexible ways of planning when it comes to completely newly built areas and to leave space for experiments. Since the municipality of Knivsta can’t predict the needs and demands of the future different type of residents it’s good to leave some place for changes to truly fit the needs of all people who will be living in Knisvta. It will be a challenge to program activities throughout the day for a diverse range of people, but if the municipality is aware of this they can be aware of it since the beginning and let the process be organic and not to planned out. When you are aware of this you can keep in mind to program together and for the new ​and old residents, to prevent a detachment of place where the old resident don’t feel at home in their hometown, what happens too often when neighbourhoods welcome a new group of people with maybe other needs and commands. To prevent gentrification and segregation it will be good to start the design of the programming together with the old residents to make sure they still feel included and can be part of the change in their hometown. Links for more information: ● Historical research for Knivsta by Hamus Busk: ● Ideas : People : Places – Crea Cymunedau Cyfoes: ● Museumstraat: ​ ● The presentation on the Kalasatama case: ng


During the Cities for All conference, the Friday afternoon workshop, Kids, focused on the issues of gentrification and segregation with children in mind. ​Inclusion​ means designing cities for and with children and youth. By making it a goal to co-create playful intergenerational spaces in cities with children and their communities, then children and communities feel ownership of that public space, and that the city is being designed with them in mind. During the workshop 3 common challenges were presented: 1. How to get the information from kids / youth; 2. How to involve them in planning, and 3. How to let them influence decision makers During the first half Zora Pauliniova, Marissa Denker, Neasa NiBhriain, Reini Stadler and Martine Sluijs all presented their work and challenges, before separating into small work groups. Overall, the group agreed that placing children at the heart of the design of future cities, means that cities will become more accessible, inclusive and playful for everyone. The results of the workshop were:


Tools to use: ● Journaling children, for example, how they walk to school and thus use the space and navigate the journey ● Involve kids in mapping their environment ● Exhibit designs of kids Challenges of implementation: ● Shortage of space for playing (40m2 per child) ● Time ● Language and trust Solutions: ● Advise real estate how to use input from communities and children in their development ● Ask children to describe places rather than asking them direct or yes/no questions ● Focus on mobility ● Ask children to design places for children ● Develop a language for kids ● Gamify the process for government to involve kids ● Train adults to listen to the wisdom of kids & to take them seriously




Conclusions of the Cities for All conference The two days in Stockholm were full of knowledge, interaction and energy. Workshops, meetings and working with the locals need follow up. People present at the conference will find each other to take next steps. A group of ambassadors emerged at the conference, willing to take the lead to bring the subjects raised further. STIPO can help push the network, but the network belongs to the European Placemakers together. In the concluding session we used the wisdom of the crowd to come up with points of interest, priorities and next steps for: 1.

Managing the European Placemaking Network


Research Agenda for European Placemaking Network


Bringing the European Placemaking Toolbox to the next level


Gentrification, segregation and inclusion

For each topic there are between 10 and 20 ambassadors who will help to the take next step. Please join these groups. Ask for details.


​Managing the European Placemaking Network

We need to organize a formal structure for the network and keep it going. Points of Interest: ● Distribution of tasks and responsibilities and clear organisation and ownership ● Creating the charter and short-term planning are priority. ● Creating an easy to use web-based platform for staying in contact and sharing ideas ● Multidisciplinary teamwork! Market, academics and government ● Our european placemaking management team should include...representation from women and minorities from diverse background. Priority. ● Specific network topics ● To develop and share the inputs that go towards/into the measurement of the value of placemaking. How do we measure it and what do we measure? ● Ideas for visual and content structure. Brainstorming for engaging. Easy access, active, personal, enriching, empowering and fun! ● Funding the network ● Overthink the strategic goals and structure of the epn



​Research Agenda for European Placemaking Network

Let’s join forces in sharing knowledge about placemaking and do research together. Points of interest ● Placemaking research agenda – accessible to everyone Research, time, energy (contribution) ● ●

Priority to create a platform for active participation Making the right city concept more operational and a key target in research agenda

Topics to research for ● How to shift power to communities in the long term ● Sharing practical experience related to topics: how to successfully involve people into placemaking process ● Research on social interaction in place ● Research on price development of real estate in place-moving areas ● How to redevelop public spaces with people, that they use it ● Better understanding of the relationship between public space and ICT how to use ICT to make PS more attractive Network research ● Academic network for EU competitive projects ● Demonstrating the value of placemaking to encourage land owners, developers, etc ● Support partnership with universities ● Uniting student research with placemaking research agenda Research/Projects ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Enhancing safety through urban design UAUIM-mix of architecture and urbanism Bucharest - civitta Slovak examples – Long- term development land ownership of regeneration schemes in London GIS spatial temporal, social media, big data City at eye level for kids Link to projects in Wales/Bristol, UK Representing Living Cities, that works on solutions Feminist tools in urban planning and design in Rinkeby Stockholm Winter Placemaking, Secrets of great social benches, Collaborative research on social sustainability in redeveloping public spaces, Tools for inclusive public spaces, Research on how to design for people with a physical disability



​Bringing the European Placemaking Toolbox to the next level

During the Stockholm conference we presented the first draft version of the European Placemaking Toolbox. The coming period we want to find more tools and make them manageable for placemakers via tailormade placemaking toolboxes. In the concluding session the following issues were raised. Points of Interest Integration of age groups Scientific placemaking with master planning and landscape design Bad and good examples of placemaking that includes methods, so anyone can learn for it Generating high quality and participation in public space Promote PPP and other ownership models Set scientific approach that helps shaping our places for good, Search for Tools Ways to document projects- best practices Variety according to different European contexts Interview with locals to know tools Tools to educate municipality Organising network Develop typology of tactics Improving methods to share data and knowledge, Testing tools and Evaluation, Chapters & Tools Participatory process, Kids (involve and extract valuable info), Place management cooperatives Financial tools and how to develop them Planning and urban innovation Info on butterfly model,


Possible priorities Develop toolbox for Asian countries, Develop tools for Mediterranean context, Local network and current/ future examples of placemaking, municipality of Varmdo, Develop toolbox for Uppsala. Connecting with a cultural network in Barnaba and the innovative network of Fabbabs , Connecting with Brazilian network though E.L.A.(escola livre de anquretune), New communities’ development and financial madding



Gentrification, segregation and inclusion

Gentrification, inclusion and segregation was one of the main themes of the conference. In the concluding session participants raised the following issues for a next step Points of Interest ● Our agenda for cities: gentrification & segregation - ● Involvement >> co-design with end user >> digitally and on an ongoing basis ● Placemaking >> activism >> local democracy across europe ● The priority is to reduce the segregation of different people first then to think of creating a place to include as many kinds of different target people as possible. ● Don’t forget different religions and the gay community ● Priority! Define the terms and know how they apply in different situations. Specific network topics ● report paper writing for case study research ● Help with case studies & promoting ● Nurture the weak activity in old town cores ● Including people in all stages of process effectively ● Design with user experts ● More events in all countries ● Activating the online network based on topics ● Physical activity of the placemaking agenda ● Following up and evaluation of the agenda ● Tools how to engage people with the focus on having healthy and active living Research topics ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Observe case study research, which targets affordable housing solutions/to the spatial exclusion of low-income residential areas. To create connection between energy-efficient neighbourhoods and social housing Town planning aerial co-working & economics density. Find activities that will end negative trends immediately Places with armed conflicts (cyprus) and/or politically segregated communities (catalonia/spain) Food justice Climate action Activism - we must understand how & where & why it can work or not Universal design. Enforce it through multiple and intersectional approach New economic mechanisms for common benefit for communities upon neighbourhood improvements

Research/Projects ● Mediterranean context ● I have a long and wide experience in activism & gentrification in Europe and Cuba. I can provide data and case studies 53

Research and cluster best practices & experiments with economic models Make the diversity a strength point for projects. People with diversity or special needs are the user experts! Participatory process. Include waste pickers in the design of urban environments (e.g. types of bins, workshops…) Master thesis research - kids and intergeneration Feminism urban planning Cultural inclusion of varying background in the urban fabric

● ● ● ● ● ●


Join us for the next chapters Let’s take the European Placemaking Network to the next phase -

Use the ​facebook​ and ​LinkedIn​ groups to stay in touch Register for our mailchimp ​newsletter​ to stay up to date Invite fellow placemakers to join the network through ​this survey Help us build the network!

‘We need the network to foster an understanding of what makes a good PLACE and how we can help to create good places by connecting a diverse group of people and initiatives, from placemakers, practitioners, universities and cities to developers and other networks that influence urban development.’ More info If you are a practitioner, academic of public servant and you are interested in placemaking please join the network. There are already several work groups that could be of interest for you. See below: European Placemaking Network A place where everyone can virtually come together, sharing ideas and new concepts that can support us all in our daily work. European Placemaking Network: Agenda A page where you can share your upcoming agenda with others: conferences, workshops and other insightful events. A key aspect of the network is maintaining face-to-face communication and encouraging us to speak about current topics. European Placemaking Network: EU Urban Agenda This page is dedicated to finding ways into securing funding for projects that meet with the requirements of the EU Urban Agenda. European Placemaking Network: Joint Research As we all know, collaboration within research regarding placemaking is imperative. This is an open call to anyone, offering or seeking, to collaborate with universities or research institutions. European Placemaking Network: Toolbox This page is for those who would want to showcase the tools you find useful in placemaking, and to learn from others.


Partners and Sponsors

Thank you to our partners

STIPO is a multidisciplinary team for urban strategy and city development. For the last 25 years, the company has been operating in neighbourhoods, cities and regions: working with initiators, residents, entrepreneurs, investors, government authorities and other knowledge partners. The way the team operates, it is based on the combination of doing and thinking, theory and practice as well as implementation and strategy.

Future of Places Research Network is a collaborative platform for research, implementation, networking and advocacy, centered on key issues of public space as a fundamental component of sustainable urban development. The Future of Places Research Network represents the next evolution of the project, with a global collaboration between researchers and implementers of the “New Urban Agenda,” and most importantly, its focus on public space. They have their main hub at the Centre for the Future of Places, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, founded in 1827, is one of Europe’s leading technical and engineering universities, a centre of intellectual talent and innovation. It is one of the largest Swedish technical research and learning institutions, that provides advancing knowledge and hosts both students and researchers.

Tertius is a Stockholm based consultancy in fundraising, analysis and project management in the area of culture. Their mission is to provide support in funding, communication strategies, and development of infrastructure in culture, sports and creative spaces. They provide support in public-private collaborations and specifically corporate partnerships in culture and sports. They do this through research, organizing events, conferences and consulting in specific projects.

Formas is a Swedish Research Council for sustainable development. They work with research funding, strategy, assessment and analysis as well as research communication. They allocate


about half of their means through an annual open call, where researchers identify research needs within areas such as Climate, Circular economy, Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Urban planning.

The City at Eye Level is a program for improving cities, streets and places worldwide, an open source learning network, and a book. We help create great streets, places where you intuitively want to stay longer, human scale interaction between buildings and streets, ownership by users, placemaking and good plinths (active ground floors) and a people-centred approach based on the user’s experience.

And thank you to our sponsors

Fastighetsägarbloggen is the Swedish Property Federation. They are a highly proactive trade organization promoting an efficient real estate market in Sweden. Almost 15,000 property owners are members. Their members represent the entire spectrum of the property industry, owning or managing premises and rental apartment buildings, industrial properties and tenant-owners’ associations. The Federation also initiates and supports research and development activities within the property field.

Stockholm Stad is the governmental organisation of the Swedish capital. Their aim is to continuously develop Stockholm, to be there for its citizens and to make Stockholm Northern Europe‘s most attractive city for people and businesses looking for high quality of life, financial growth and a vibrant, knowledge-based environment.

Uppsala is the 4th city of Sweden, over 200,000 people live there. The Municipality is responsible for such things as childcare, schools and care of the elderly. They also work to promote the business sector, energy and housing. And we do many other things. For them it is important that people who live in the Municipality of Uppsala are satisfied with the services the Municipality offers.




















de Boer




De Neve






























Hafvenstein Säteri













Bugge Marin

















































































































Seyedeh Atefeh Mortazavi












Muratorio Cavichioni





Laura Rose













Ni Bhirian




































































Tönnesen Libisz












Turull Puig




















Leeuw, de




Van der Spek


















von Hofsten