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:  www.thecityateyelevel.com  www.stipo.nl  Jeroen.laven@stipo.nl 




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:   https://nabolagshager.no/  http://www.lamarinadevalencia.com/mreal/web_php/index.php 


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:  http://42sdc.org/  https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/artists-to-set-up-camp-in-brooklyn-army-terminal/ 

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:   https://endeavours.eu/  https://www.forgood.eco  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.”  https://rekreators.eu/​ - ​https://www.holzmarkt.com/​ - ​http://www.moerchenpark.de/moerchenpark/ 

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.    http://www.jaakkoblomberg.fi/home/ 

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.  http://www.architecture00.net/​ - ​https://islington.impacthub.net​ - ​https://brixton.impacthub.net 

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 ​https://rekreators.eu/​.


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 ​https://www.linkedin.com/in/ehoogendijk/   Joost Beunderman   Project 00 | ​@​joostbeunderman ​https://www.linkedin.com/in/joost-beunderman-b24a573/   Pärtel-Peeter Pere   Future Place Leadership | @placeleadership ​https://www.linkedin.com/in/paertel/     We focused on an example of Barkaby: ​http://www.barkarbystaden.se/​ , 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:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/6v9k17md6bfa48b/Innovation%20Quarters%20workshop%20-%20%23citie 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:   http://urbact.eu/gender-equal-cities  http://urbact.eu/gender-equality-heart-city  http://www.ccre.org/en/activites/view/11 


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:  https://issuu.com/tatan68/docs/margarethaskolan_web  ● Ideas : People : Places – Crea Cymunedau Cyfoes:  http://www.arts.wales/arts-in-wales/ideas-people-places  ● Museumstraat: ​https://www.facebook.com/museumstraatamsterdam/  ● The presentation on the Kalasatama case:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/17xyL1RU-jHMoiTmawc2e89qalnwCfO-b/view?usp=shari 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 jeroen.laven@stipo.nl 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, gruppotamalaca@gmail.com  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. https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13564119 https://www.facebook.com/groups/1925219721138696/ 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. https://www.facebook.com/groups/394602550999854/ 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. https://www.facebook.com/groups/552716705092187/ 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. https://www.facebook.com/groups/343127196096783/ 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. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1989066958027385/


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











































Profile for STIPO

Cities for all conference 2018 report (3)  

This report is the result of the Cities For All conference that took place in Stockholm, April 2018. The event was organized in collaboratio...

Cities for all conference 2018 report (3)  

This report is the result of the Cities For All conference that took place in Stockholm, April 2018. The event was organized in collaboratio...

Profile for stipoteam