Place-making and Urban Development

New challenges for contemporary planning and design

Pier Carlo Palermo, Davide Ponzini

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781134632688
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Development
• Index: Business

The regeneration of critical urban areas through the redesign of public space with the intense involvement of local communities seems to be the central focus of place-making according to some widespread practices in academic and professional circles. Recently, new expertise maintains that place-making could be an innovative and potentially autonomous field, competing with more traditional disciplines like urban planning, urban design, architecture and others.

This book affirms that the question of 'making better places for people' should be understood in a broader sense, as a symptom of the non-contingent limitations of the urban and spatial disciplines. It maintains that research should not be oriented only towards new technical or merely formal solutions but rather towards the profound rethinking of disciplinary paradigms. In the fields of urban planning, urban design and policy-making, the challenge of place-making provides scholars and practitioners a great opportunity for a much-needed critical review. Only the substantial reappraisal of long-standing (technical, cultural, institutional and social) premises and perspectives can truly improve place-making practices.

The pressing need for place-making implies trespassing undue disciplinary boundaries and experimenting a place-based approach that can innovate and integrate planning regulations, strategic spatial visioning and urban development projects. Moreover, the place-making challenge compels urban experts and policy-makers to critically reflect upon the physical and social contexts of their interventions. In this sense, facing place-making today is a way to renew the civic and social role of urban planning and urban design.

1
Place-making issues

1.1 What is place-making?

Polysemy

There is not a single and shared answer to this question. According to some interpretations, making urban places is a crucial goal in some influential urban planning/design traditions. In fact, the topic recalls some emerging challenges that have engendered controversial and evolving solutions in these disciplines. “Making better places” should be the focus of the planning project in the twenty-first century according to Patsy Healey, even if her approach does not attribute an influential role to urban design (Healey, 2010). On the other hand, urban design can be understood as “the art of making better places for people” (Carmona et al., 2003: 3). According to John Punter who, like Matthew Carmona, has undertaken important urban research, “the biggest challenge remains to convert the increasingly vacuous mantra of place-making into substantive corporate practices linking development management with housing, transport and community services provision” (Punter, 2010: 352). This view reveals a certain impatience with some of today’s place-making rhetoric, as well as the desire to anchor thinking to concrete urban development processes. These considerations indicate a degree of convergence between two major disciplinary traditions that have long remained separate and are often in competition. If they do share common goals, some criticism of the current disciplinary division is justified, as is the search for greater mutual cooperation between planning and design (Punter and Carmona, 1997, Wyatt, 2004, Vale, 2008).

Moreover, the most popular conceptions of place-making seem to move in different directions. This potentially radical innovation could open new prospects regarding issues of great civic and social interest. According to Project for Public Spaces, “place-making has the potential to be one of the most transformative ideas of this century” (MPC Chicago, 2008: 1). It is an original way of thinking about urban issues and their possible solutions. The approach is distinguished by precise features and has generated important work, and now seems to seek more advanced forms of institutionalization. In this sense, place-making could represent a potentially autonomous theory and practice, deserving special attention (Madden, 2011).

Rarer are opposing positions that not only tend to question the topic’s novelty but critically highlight the limitations of innovations that kindled great hope in recent decades. Allmendinger and Haughton reflect upon issues of spatial planning in Great Britain, “the dominant planning doctrine during the New Labour years”; they note that this planning framework “through multi-scalar and sectoral co-ordination and integration was envisaged as a form of meta-spatial governance or, in more prosaic terms, concerned with place-making” (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2011a: 184). This observation is interesting insofar as it aptly points out that the place-making scale is not only local. Unfortunately, it also indicates that this label can be associated with experiences that were recently considered innovative and influential but today are in crisis in certain important contexts (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009). This is the case of spatial planning in the UK. “In retrospect spatial planning was replete with overambitious statements and was not subject to sufficient critical engagement or challenge” (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2011a: 184). In this sense, the centrality of place-making for the spatial disciplines is highlighted; however, based on an honest appraisal, it can be argued that some institutional, social, and disciplinary difficulties are still unresolved. Considerable distance from the previously indicated celebratory positions still remains.

This variety of positions should stimulate reflection. Most likely, place-making could be considered a topic with which it seems impossible to disagree. But it is not the only one. Other trendy buzzwords seem doomed to the same fate. In fact there are “phrases such as sustainable development, urban renaissance and sustainable communities that everyone could sign up to – who could be for unsustainable development?” (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010: 327). However, virtuous intentions and overly vague interpretations cannot become alibis. Purely rhetorical positions can conceal a number of important problems and difficulties behind a veil of uplifting values (Wortham-Galvin, 2008). It is neither possible nor right to oscillate opportunistically between divergent visions. Responsibility must be taken by stating a position that clarifies a chosen point of view.

Trends and challenges

Based on these premises, it seems important to declare the book’s underlying position. In our view, place-making should not be considered a mere professional practice nor a new disciplinary category. The concept alludes to an important topic – the production of livable and sustainable places – that should be included in the missions of the various disciplines that address the organization and management of the built environment. It also refers to a set of practices for achieving this goal through the application of rules and the use of appropriate tools. We do not believe that it is a priority to attempt to define a new field of ideas and experiences in relation to these issues, although similar trends can be observed on the international scene (PPS, 2012, Silverberg et al., 2013). It seems more important to reflect upon the ways in which this topic has been approached in different disciplinary traditions. This is a two-fold task: selection, since only some paradigms can truly address this range of issues; and “trespassing” (in Hirschman’s view, 1981), since problems and approaches should not be confined to a single subject or professional field.

In this way, it might become possible to rethink how some key challenges are faced in different cultural traditions, and to explore the mutual intersections suggesting new developments that might be significant for the disciplines themselves (Palermo and Ponzini, 2010). These results seem potentially more interesting than institutionalizing yet another academic domain and creating specialized place-making handbooks – while not once foregoing the fact that these goals are important for professional practice (Pitchford and Henderson, 2008, Hamdi, 2010, Ellin, 2013).

There is no doubt that interest in the topic has been manifested among professionals and the public; it grew from a series of mostly local experiences concerning the quality of urban settlements and the meaning of the urban condition. The importance and timeliness of these issues seem to justify the idea of formulating specific professional circles or establishing a new disciplinary field (see, for example, the work by Project for Public Spaces [PPS], Resource for Urban Development International [RUDI], and similar references). However, these are not new issues, but rather fundamental questions for policy-makers, urban scholars, practitioners, and, especially, citizens. It is difficult to maintain that urban planning or design practices can substantially disregard problems and goals of this kind. Thus, it might be wise to explore the reasons why so many real planning and design experiences and, more generally public policy, have not been able to guarantee satisfactory results regarding such principles and criteria. Considerable communicative simplification prevails and, in many cases, any real reflection seems to be lacking. Instead of learning from specific situations, it seems easier to understand place-making as an innovative practice (as an alternative to the planning and design mainstream: Madden, 2011). This means underestimating the connections between emerging experiences, established disciplinary and professional fields (Banerjee and Loukaitou-Sideris, 2011), and the non-contingent difficulties of any project whose goal is to improve the quality of urban life (well-documented by Carmona et al., 2003, Jenks and Dempsey, 2005, Punter, 2010, Healey, 2010, Calthorpe, 2011, Flannery and Smith, 2011, Sanyal et al., 2012, in their respective fields).

We believe that this point of view can lead to ephemeral outcomes and new disenchantments. It seems necessary to reject fashionable and simplistic place-making conceptions in order to think more deeply about the meaning and scope of this challenge within contemporary society and disciplinary culture. We need a solid conceptual framework and a rigorous critique of some trendy positions. In our view, the answer to the initial question can be found neither in alleged best practices nor in mere exhortations, however virtuous they may be. The question brings into play a number of critical factors regarding practices and thinking about the quality of spatial development and the creation of better conditions for urban life. The scope of this book is to attempt to reinterpret what is, in reality, a classic theme – “making better places” – based more appropriately on emerging challenges and past experience.

Key issues

If this is the premise, we must tackle some difficulties. For many years, the concept of “place” has appeared questionable on the local scale and even more so on the urban one. The city is no longer a place; it no longer manifests a unified and shared identity. Correspondence between space and society is more uncertain; spatial fragmentation – into separate and often precarious urban units – is growing and open and public spaces are likely to become residual or problematic (Roncayolo, 1985, Bridge and Watson, 2000, Soja, 2000, Zukin, 2010, Shane, 2011). A genuine community dimension may be missing even on the local level (Fish-man, 1987, Calthorpe 1993, Beauregard 2006, Grant 2006) while the capacity of urban settlements to foster cohesion among its numerous social components is diminishing (Bagnasco and Le Galès, 2000, Bauman, 2003). It is more plausible to believe that socially and culturally uniform features are selected on the basis of contractual relations (see the case of “gated communities”: Fordvary, 1994, Beito et al., 2002, Nelson, 2005, Atkinson and Blandy, 2006, Glasze et al., 2006). The “spirit of place” (Norberg Schulz, 1979, De Carlo, 1992) is likely to become a rhetorical image alluding to a presumed tradition that has been lost and cannot find confirmation in real urban conditions and experiences.

In this context, current rhetoric reaffirms the priority of regenerating urban places. Place-making refers to goals that are of obvious symbolic, civic and social interest, but it could also open new opportunities for architectural and urban development. If quality of life improves, possibilities for the use of places become more diverse and profitable as does their ability to attract (Smyth, 1994, Ward, 1998, Anholt, 2007, Angotti, 2008, Porter and Shaw, 2009). Therefore, the prospect might seem worthwhile. The point is whether it is necessary to substantiate such assumptions, strategies and approaches. Do the factors that have undermined the notion of place in the post-modern city not constitute obstacles? The caveat applies to those who intend to establish a new professional, and possibly academic, domain which, moreover, could be added to the many already available (urban design, new urbanism, landscape urbanism, and so on) in a highly fragmented arena under pressure from professional competition rather than cultural identity. It also applies to those who only seek to overcome the limitations of traditional practices through improved capacity for integration between the physical and social dimensions of a given problem (Glass, 1959, Jacobs, 1961, Perloff, 1965, Gans, 1968, Whyte, 1980, Madanipour, 1996), and between expert and common knowledge (Friedmann and Hudson, 1974, Lindblom and Cohen, 1979, Schön, 1982, 1983a, Friedmann, 1987, Crosta, 1998, Fisher, 2009). At various times and in different contexts, similar topics have been explored by a number of urban design and planning schools. What are the innovations that could make the new direction successful? It is difficult to find any indication in this sense in trendy place-making communications. Each experience seems to be related to local and contingent factors and it does not seem necessary to discuss underlying reasons, principles and presumed innovations. Is it only a matter of waiting for the progress of good practices? This position seems simplistic and illusory and risks becoming a mere ideological manifestation, like new rhetoric that accompanies practices that have not have been substantially renewed. In this way, the need for innovation and potential revision of some current experiences might be thwarted.

If this is the challenge, a dual line of investigation seems necessary: the study of the emerging place-making phenomenology and the exploration of the relationships among this set of practices, new reflections on the topic, and some design, planning, and policy-making traditions that are relevant insofar as they are interconnected or overlapping with such a field of experiences. The goal is not to invent new visions or practices but to seek more appropriate responses to long-term and still-unresolved problems.

1.2 Simplistic views and recurrent criticism

One fashionable topic

Over the past decade, place-making discourses have proliferated in the public arena and within the general population even before having reached academia. A survey of the most widespread media (more influential in terms of public opinion than specialized texts) shows increasing diffusion, which does not, however, correspond to mature conceptual thought (see Boyd and Chan, 2002, PPS, 2009, 2012, Grabow, 2013). The trend stems from extensive dissatisfaction with the quality and effectiveness of urban conditions. Contemporary society and politics continue to create settlements that lack meaning, where the “spirit of place” has become increasingly weak – fragile and uncertain or imaginary and imitative when the attempt is made to transfer general and preconceived settlement patterns to any given context (Fishman, 1977, 2011). At the same time, pervasive globalization and changing lifestyles undermine the cohesion of local communities (Nancy, 1986, 1999, Bauman, 2003, 2007) despite the confidence of new urbanism in being able to overcome these problems (Duany and Plater-Zyberg, 1991, Katz, 1994, Dutton, 2000). In this context, town planning or urban design practices regarding the physical transformation of urban contexts are not sufficient; the challenge is to improve the quality of life and the resulting effects on a community’s well-being and empowerment. The economic and social crisis that has been looming for years should stimulate environmental sustainability and social cohesion along with the economic attractiveness of urban places. “Soft place-making skills” are necessary for achieving these goals (Urban Design Forum, 2009:1). Here we are not alluding to a set of techniques but to a different approach that can ensure deep and positive innovation. At least this is the hope.

In reality, the list of available tools is short and well known. Current place-making experiences tend to improve livability and urban sustainability mainly through the modification or transformation of public space (Barnett, 1974, Gehl, 1987, Carmona et al., 2003, Madanipour, 2003). Projects take on juridical, planning, architectural, and economic characteristics, with possible social consequences. However, it is difficult to maintain that a dense and rich idea of the public realm is in question – even if John Dewey’s idea of “public” has been influential in international planning culture. In general, what is missing is thinking about how public space might generate common meaning (Bridge and Watson, 2000, Amin and Thrift, 2002, Dehaene and De Cauter, 2008) and social interaction between a plurality of subjects (Lindblom, 1990, Lanzara, 1993); also lacking is the analysis of the material consequences of these processes on social behaviors and public policy (Bianchetti, 2008b). The physical components of the interventions concern the technical design and construction of an urban structure. However, the symbolic, anthropological, and social analyses continue to be schematic or merely hypothetical.

In truth, the approach seeks to be innovative. Traditional relationships between settlement form and life experiences should be overturned – “First life, then space, then buildings” (Gehl, 2006: 75; see also Gehl and Gemzoe, 2003, Gehl, 2010). The possibilities for and quality of the urban experience should guide planning and architectural choices. Another innovative requirement, with respect to traditional practice, would be the participation of people in the construction of urban places. Participation is a challenging notion that should not be confused with generic consultation procedures. In fact, it might involve situations of involvement, engagement, or empowerment; the sequence itself indicates a crescendo of commitments and responsibilities (PPS, 2009, RUDI, 2014). Many participatory experiences have yielded disappointing results but these difficul-ties should not lead to cynical conclusions that consider participation to be an expensive and purely formal ritual adopted out of necessity or convenience and which does not produce any significant effects. The point is that people, with their life experiences, are experts: in meaning, needs, and possibilities for the transformation of urban space (Imrie and Hall, 2001, PPS, 2009, Madden 2011). Professionals need only provide the complementary resources useful for facilitating the process. This view contradicts the more widespread belief among scholars and practitioners insofar as the most common conceptions of urban design rely mainly – if not exclusively – on political will and professional expertise. It therefore becomes important to study everyday practices in order to investigate possible meanings and emerging needs with which design solutions should be consistent. The possibility for, and importance of, a bottom-up participatory approach seems to find confirmation in such recent trends as the aforementioned new urbanism, eco-cities (Heynen et al., 2006, Beatley, 2011, 2012, Wong and Yuen, 2011), or the smart cities movements (Heberle and Opp, 2008, Dierwechter, 2008, Duany and Speck, 2010) that have achieved fame and success – first in the US and later in Europe – as alternatives to traditional functionalist, normative, and technocratic urbanism (Sutcliffe, 1980, Perloff, 1980, Boyer 1983, Krueckeberg, 1983). The formulation of good practices and the selection of appropriate toolkits should derive from testing innovative participa-tory methods. Reference to specific contexts should be indispensable but practitioners tend to create, as far as possible, general professional handbooks (Wates, 2000, 2008, Pitchford and Henderson, 2008, Cooper et al., 2009, Hamdi, 2010, Sarkissian et al., 2010).

Traditions and experiments

One might object. “Participatory design of public space” is certainly not an unusual theme in urban design or planning. For some time, community design, new urbanism, advocacy planning (Davidoff, 1965, Peattie, 1968, Clavel 1994), transactive planning (Friedmann, 1973, Alexander, 1995), or collaborative planning (Healey, 1997, Innes and Booher, 2008, Gaffikin and Morrissey, 2011) have moved in similar directions in different ways, with varied and sometimes disappointing outcomes. How can we have greater hopes in this case? The emerging place-making movement seems to rely on reassuring rhetoric. The innovations are not quite as clear from the point of view of principles, tools, and techniques.

If we focus for a moment on techniques and tools, the proposals certainly do not appear original (Hall and Portefield 2001, Ellin, 2006, 2013, Walter, 2007, Silverberg et al., 2013). Transformation should ideally be driven by a master plan intimately related to a specific context. Urban settlements should ensure a sufficiently varied and balanced functional mixité. The priority should be the creation of a system of public places that promote social interaction with choices based on compliance with strict sustainability requirements. Observation, interaction, and listening are foundations for learning that helps the local community share and implement an integrated vision. Management of the process plays a key role and it is not only a matter of analysis, decision, and design: operational effectiveness becomes a crucial requirement. It is not a purely public function because partnerships with private or collective subjects become essential at this stage. In fact, government should focus its efforts on the redevelopment of public space, relying on the mobilization of private resources and initiatives to fully implement a shared vision. Architectural and urban form is an important issue but it is not a decisive one. In fact, it might even b...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Place-making issues
• 2 Place-making in urban development processes
• 3 Key questions in urban development and planning
• 4 Italian experiences in place-making
• 5 Developing urban places in European cities
• 6 A place-based view of urban planning, urban design, and policy-making
• 7 A place-based perspective on urban development
• References
• Name index
• Subject index