By Malvin Kaur BA MSc
Introduction
As globalization and localisation continues to deepen the complexities experienced in the urban form, changing dynamics in spatial planning is undoubtedly at the forefront of urban planning research and debate amongst practitioners, academics and policy makers. Public space remains a vital characteristic in the urban environment, playing a central role in offering social and political agency, as well as shaping patterns of spatial behaviour and life. (Madanipour, 1999)
With this, the developing practice of placemaking has raised a wave of interest in how the concepts of space can be reimagined through seeking to gain an ‘integral view’ on the use of a particular urban space from the perspective of different stakeholders and their diverse interests. (Cilliers & Timmermans, 2014). In a 21st century urban reality, where the capitalist political economy holds dominance, scholars have demonstrated an interest in this realm of rethinking by questioning how the urban space can illuminate the ideology of justice in a city. This has brought reinvigoration on how the rescaling of governance can facilitate political and economic negotiations at multiple levels. (Connolly & Steil, 2014)
Similarly, as Mitchell (2003) argues, ‘in a world defined by private property…. public space takes on exceptional importance’ where it creates an avenue for representation that both ‘demands and creates space’. (2003:34) One could argue that placemaking highlights important research questions around its relevance to contemporary planning, such as: how interventions to activate public spaces reveal the potential of citizen input into creating meaningful places; how programming and curating space can impact the developmental evolution of the urban; and how placemaking can facilitate a more inclusive and integrated process into planning for the community.
Where public spaces are seen as spatial anchors in the urban environment, debates by Gottdeiner and Hutchinson (2010) highlight that whilst economic, political and social institutions undoubtedly facilitate the creation of urban space, the meaning behind these spaces are created by the people themselves, generating specific patterns of social relations that act as the driving force behind change and reconstruction. (Hutchinson & Lopez, 2017) One could argue that key placemaking elements, centered around social value realisation, can be an alternative approach to tackling complex urban developments, recognising that the urban itself is highly transformative in nature. (Brenner & Schmid, 2015)
It brings forward crucial conversations around the dynamics and relationships between people and space and how it can be transformed into places of ownership and identity through a process of democratic decision making. Understanding the connection between the built environment and society itself is a fundamental precondition to reconceptualise the urban and seek better ways, particularly in the context of planning, to sustainably move forward in the face of future dynamic urban development.
Situating placemaking within this framework of thinking draws close connections to ‘collaborative’ and ‘communicative’ turns in planning. This consensus building strategy has offered an alternative lens for practicing planners, recognising that knowledge is socially constructed, and values are established throughout the collaborative process itself. (Harris, 2005)
It redefines the responsibility of the planner, whereby they play a vital role in either facilitating or hindering the communicative element in the planning process. In a similar vein to Healy’s (1997) study of presenting collaborative planning as a way forward in realising the ‘practical meaning of participatory democracy in pluralist societies’, Innes (1995) positions the role of the planner in questioning what does and does not work within the systematic framework, building on the fundamental findings of the practice- ‘that planning, more than anything, is an interactive, communicative activity’. (1995:184; Gualini & Bianchi, 2015).
Whilst systematic thinkers (Hirschman, 1958, 1967; Faludi, 1973) have pointed out the impossibility in aggregating intangible values in society, it must be realised that complex economic and social change continues to undermine the bases upon which spatial plans and frameworks are negotiated. (Healy, 1997) Planning has therefore transformed into a process that seeks to explore the mutual interests expressed in the public and how this can be translated into actual action and implementation.
However, while this approach remains a key theory in planning literature, there are limitations to which it is able to deliver stable urban societies amidst the rapid changes that are continuously occurring in the 21st century urban economy. With this, emerging literature continues to question and push the boundaries at which collaborative planning can be practiced, provoking an emergence in alternative visions in the urban space experience.
Existing Urban Systems
While western-city bottom up advocacy has seen prominence in countries like the UK, such a theory has also gained traction in the Asian context of Singapore. Contextually, with land being the city-state’s most binding constraint, urban development has been subject to precision planning to ensure that sufficient land is available to cater to the needs of the growing population and economic activity whilst maintaining a good quality of life for its citizenry. (Khoo & Guo, 2017).
This paved for tight public control over land use and spatial development, emphasising the ‘dominance of wider national interest arguments’. (Soh & Yuen, 2006) However, acknowledging that ‘static blueprint plans’ would be ineffective within changing circumstances in the urban, planning and development strategies have witnessed multiple revisions in light of recognising that a ‘project-by project’ approach would lead to possible long-term negative effects. (Khoo & Guo, 2017)
The Concept Plan today, a framework to ensure provision for urban planning in the city-state, is heavily supported by a Master Plan, revised every 5 years, in order to maintain a degree of flexibility and transparency to the planning system. The importance of community participation was also realised in the 1980’s through the creation of grassroots organisations, namely the Residents Committees (RCs) and Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs). (Ker & Tuminez, 2015)
Nevertheless, despite a growing recognition for adopting participatory theories into planning, in actuality, the inherent market-based approach has largely driven urban development and governance in Singapore, thus limiting the scope for planning decentralisation. (Khoo & Guo, 2017) As Castell (1976) describes urban planning to be a fundamental tool for political intervention, Singapore’s approach to urban planning has predominantly centered around being a state-controlled mechanism to realise its strategic development goals with, until only recently, little participation from the bottom-up. This inevitably fosters a degree of ‘abstraction and homogenisation of space, thus creating pockets of displacement of public spaces from its larger field- the city’ (Hee & Ooi, 2003).
A dominant view explaining passive citizen participation and a centralized planning approach in Singapore is the state having been able to satisfy the needs and expectations of citizens through delivering robust urban policies that have secured political legitimacy and stability of the country. (Ho, 2003). The outcome of this situates citizens on the receiving end of the professional and administrative decision instead of being involved in democratic decision-making process to shape spaces. (Ong, Tong & Tan, 1997).
As postulated by Lefebvre, in order for planners to create meaningful public spaces for the people, the ‘representation of space by planners and designers has to coincide with the spatial practice of the everyday’. (Hee & Ooi, 2003). While Singapore today has seen transformation in its urban planning scene by working toward creating a conducive environment for active citizenry, like many nations, planning is a process of constant improvement and the challenging task of connecting people and place still remains to be met.
Critiques: transforming theory into practice
Indeed, studies have argued that perceptions of urban space organisation have been prone to dynamism and challenge due to socio-economic change, provoking the reconceptualisation in understanding the new, innovative and prototypical forms of urban life and spaces that can be experienced. (Harvey, 1973; Lefebvre, 1991) However, even in a 21st century society, the role of communities actively engaging in the debate to transform approaches in urban planning continues to intensify. (Richards & Duif, 2018; Mateo-Babiano & Palipane, 2020).
Although collaborative approaches admits to breaking out of hierarchical centralism and extending the involvement and influence of citizens into planning policy and implementation, Healy recognises that the new ‘multi-party’ form of monitoring the relationship between stakeholders ‘sits uncomfortably with the regulatory form driven by performance criteria advocated by neo-liberal principles’ (Healy, 1998). Goodin and Dryzek (2006) builds on this issue further, suggesting that whilst it relates closely to deliberative innovations in planning and aims to reach consensus (Habermas, 1984), the ambiguity lies in that ‘consensus is dependent on subjective assessment by each participating actor’. (Mannberg and Wihlborg, 2008) This can be seen as a fundamental contributor to a gap in transforming collaborative planning theory into practice and implementation. Although the communicative process secures the use of negotiations with the aims to share a mutual understanding and agreement (Habermas and Cooke, 2001), the triple aim of balancing the cooperation between different interests of actors, implementing the plan as well as being able to extract tangible value makes it highly complex and challenging process. (Irazabal, 2009)
Thus, planning practices continue to face new challenges brought on by urban resistance and demands from contemporary societies, where pronounced socio-spatial differences and administrative reforms have heightened fragmentation in urban spaces. (Kearn & Paddison, 2000). Therefore, although Singapore’s resource constraints have resulted in decades of it being a planned nation, the evident multicultural nature of society and desires to tackle social exclusion has inevitably resulted in change in the planning system.
Hence, notwithstanding the contextual background on which the planning framework is built on, the inability of authorities to fully respond to these challenges has produced an environment for spatial intervention projects to emerge, enabling the creation of identity and ownership in public space by generating partnerships to engage the citizenry. (Albrechts, 2006)
These ideas of remaking spaces into places by efforts from the bottom up can be situated within border discussions related to justice particularly in close connection to Harvey’s (2008) ‘social justice in a city’, in that space is highly dynamic and there is potential to foster its uniqueness. Such urban spaces have the ability to reshape the way public realms are used with unique project implementations that directly relate to the workings of daily activities of its urban residents.
Beyond current practice: new approaches
Although planning has always been at the forefront of regulating and enforcing efforts to carry out urban development, it is evident that ‘traditional planning instruments have been increasingly inappropriate as a response to contemporary urban restructuring’. (Harrison, 1995).
This issue of complex urban spatial systems is still prominent and rife with predicaments, thus provoking alternative approaches to urban and public space planning. While current planning processes and frameworks are seen as a response to collective action demands in the urban system, it is unable to effectively ‘transgress the very social relationships from which it is derived… where modes of interventions in urban spaces are often implemented when it serves a specific interest of capitalism’. (Dear & Scott, 1981).
Consequently, growing debates have emerged, suggesting that in order for planning to effectively respond to growing challenges in the urban, there is a need to engage in flexible, adaptive and community driven thinking whilst maintaining the competitiveness of the urban.
This multidisciplinary process recognises the social capital benefits that are to be extracted from social cohesion and citizen empowerment associated with creating effective public spaces, where the residents themselves have a personal connection to place. (PPS, 2008; Wood & Giles-Corti, 2008). Jacobs and Appleyard (1987) solidifies this idea further by asserting that whilst high-quality built environment designs play an important role in ensuring a good urban fabric, the quality is defined by the process of creation, where the involvement of citizens in the making and management of their public spaces will enhance the sense of identity and control.
Hence, interest in the process of placemaking is certainly increasing, particularly in its ability to advocate for innovative change, question regulations and planning policy, seek funding and mobilise diverse social actors. (Silberberg, 2013). As argued by Price (2013), place is ‘frequently portrayed as a weaving together of diverse individuals and experiences….’, therefore creating ‘textural dimensionality’.
However, generic top-down governance models and abstract principles have resulted in layers of regulation thus falling short on its ability to incorporate flexibility into current urban planning. (Chase, et al. 2009) Arguably, bottom up participatory opportunities that placemaking offers can be used to ‘re-activate existing public spaces or revitalise underused areas- often a result of conventional planning system limitations-, by allowing for ‘creative escapes’ and new places for social activities. (Levesque, 2013). Similar to the innovative utilisations of public space that Rossini (2019) refers to, injecting a degree of spontaneity into strategic urban development is desired in the 21st Century context, as it allows for the creation of adaptive urban spaces and people-centered urbanism. This rethinking of strategic urban space planning argues that small scale spatial interventions can indeed positively impact urban transformation in the long term, but nevertheless is yet an area to be explored further.
Types of placemaking
Whilst placemaking can be categorized into different forms, a key common denominator of all three strands is rooted in its ‘collaborative’ element, facilitating a broad engagement between the public sector, communities, non-profit and private stakeholders to create projects and activities that improve the public space, with community being a key component. The use of incremental small-scale spatial interventions, often seen in creative and tactical placemaking is inextricably linked to the creation of larger scale transformative projects that can permanently convert a place over a period, serving as a tool for long term integrated development.
- Strategic Placemaking is atargeted process with an aim to achieve a particular goal in creating quality places. This branch of placemaking is deliberate in its form, targeting knowledge workers in a new global economy, serving to attract skills and innovation through the creation of high-quality livable places. Strategic placemaking consists of fewer large-scale projects in key centers and transect location nodes in corridors with denser populations. (Wyckoff, n.d.)
- Creative Placemaking, coined by Marjusen and Gadwa, is a process designed to improve quality of life in a community by ‘integrating arts and culture into community revitalisation work’. (Zitecer, 2018). It focuses on cultural development, economic development with a place-based and asset-basedorientation’ (Vasquez, 2012). Wyckoff summarises the goal of placemaking to often ‘institutionalise arts, culture and creative thinking in all aspects of the built environment’, particularly through inclusive activities to inform planning projects by the means of artwork.
- Tactical Placemaking consists of low-cost activities that begin with short-term commitment projects which very often can be set up quickly. The key idea behind tactical placemaking is the idea of temporary use in public spaces. (Wyckoff, n.d.) This strand of placemaking allows for the testing of new concepts of public space use in the form small-scale improvements that can eventually pave ways to more substantial political commitments and financial investments. (Lydon & Garcia, 2015)
Encouraging new debates
Although studies have begun to examine the possibilities of placemaking in contemporary planning (Thomas, 2016; Adams & Tisdell, 2013; Hambleton, 2014; Seamon, 2013), the contribution to discussion regarding its long-term validity, the extent to which it has the capacity to decentralise planning powers, how it can inform current practice, and reimagine the role of urban planners remains scarce and is still emerging.
Furthermore, scholarly literature centered around understanding its applications are predominantly focused in the Global North context with well documented examples in North America, UK and Europe. (Courage, McKeown, 2019) Studies around placemaking concepts still remain a novelty in Asian urban development with only recent discussions around the importance of civic opinion incorporation into planning as a response to awakenings of multicultural realities in today’s urban environment. (Hou, 2013)
Where major cities in Asia, like Singapore, have come to ‘epitomize the region’s development phenomenon and contemporary urbanisation’, this research therefore responds to the gap in literature by expanding placemaking application research outside the Western experience (Rowe, 2005). It seeks to consider a different stance and generate new insights on how space is being reimagined and produced in an urban experience different from Global North encounters with placemaking.
This paper therefore aims to contribute to two key debates in emerging planning discourse. Firstly, it further delves into the potential of civic engagement to bolster discursive and inclusive planning practices by focusing on what happens after implementation, rather than obsessively focusing on the design element of the built environment. This was first articulated by Holling and Goldberg (1971), calling for planners to shift their planning approaches in the urban, recognising that it is characterised by nonlinear systems of spatial interactions defined by its history, which later on extended into, for example, contextually focused literatures around citizen participation in Singapore’s policy making. (Leong, 2000)
The second core debate looks at the efficiency of such an approach and the possibility of incorporating it as a complementary practice within national planning frameworks. By drawing on perspectives from an Asian experience, particularly in the case of a highly planned nation, this thesis raises important questions around inserting community-led placemaking ventures to create convivial and livable urban environments into research agendas by emphasising the need for a forward thinking approach and acceptance to the possibility of alternative practices.
As urban spaces become increasingly complex due to dynamic cross-scale interactions and fragmented development, it is important to acknowledge how a theory of change in planning can support the urban environment to co-evolve with its socio-economic fluctuations. (Carmona, 2010, Tachieva, 2010). This reconceptualisation will help to reformulate the planning discipline in theory and practice, therefore allowing for management and interpretation of urban change in evolutionary terms. (Romice, et. al. 2016).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, D. and Tiesdell, S. (2013). Shaping Places: Urban Planning, Design and Development. London: Routledge.
Albrechts, L. (2006). ‘Bridge the Gap: From Spatial Planning to Strategic Projects’. European Planning Studies, 14(10), pp.1487-1500.
Associated Press, (2020). Singapore’s Ruling Party Dominates Election But Opposition Makes Historic Gains. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/11/singapores-ruling-party-dominates-election-but-opposition-makes-historic-gains [Accessed 4 August 2020].
Campion, C. (2018). 20/20 Visions: Collaborative Planning And Placemaking. London: RIBA Publishing.
Castells, M. (1976). “Theoretical Propositions for the Experimental Study of Urban Social Movements’, in C. G. Pickvance (ed.) Urban Sociology: Critical Essays. London: Tavistock, p. 166.
Chase, J., M. Crawford, and J. Kaliski. (2009). Everyday Urbanism. New York: Monacelli Press.
Chaskin, R. J. (2005). ‘Democracy and Bureaucracy in a Community Planning Process’. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, pp.408-419.
Cheong, K. H. (2019) IPS-Nathan Lecture Series- Vol. 5: Seeking a better Urban Future. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
Chua, B. (1997). Political Legitimacy and Housing. London: Routledge.
Chye, K. T. and Gua, R. (2016) “Making Singapore a Livable and Sustainable: Our Urban Systems Approach”, in Heng, C., (ed) 50 Years Of Urban Planning In Singapore. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
Cilliers, E. and Timmermans, W. (2014). ‘The Importance of Creative Participatory Planning in the Public Place-Making Process’. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 41(3), pp.413-429.
Connolly, J. and Steil, J. (2009). “Introduction: Finding justice in the city”, in Marcuse, P, Connolly, J., Novy., J., Olivo, I., Potter, C., and Stiel, J., (ed.) Searching for the Just City: Debates in urban theory and practice. London: Routledge, pp.1-16.
Courage, C. and McKeown, A. (2019). (eds). Creative Placemaking: Research, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Crawford, J., Barton, H., Chapman, T., Higgins, M., Capon, A. G., and Thompson, S. M. (2010). ‘Health at the heart of spatial planning strengthening the roots of planning health and the urban planner health inequalities and place planning for the health of people and planet: An Australian perspective’. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(1), pp. 91–113.
Dear, M., and Flusty, S. (1998). ‘Postmodern Urbanism’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88(1), pp.50-72.
Dear, M., and Scott, A. J. (1981) “The urban questions: Towards a framework for analysis”, in Dear, M., and Scott, A. J. (eds) Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society. London: Routledge.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). ‘Building theories from case study research’. Academy of Management Review 14(4), pp.532–50.
Faludi, A. (1973). Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Franklin, A. and Marsden, T. (2015). ‘(Dis)connected communities and sustainable placemaking. Local Environment’. The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 20(8), pp.940-956.
Frantzeskaki, N., Steenbergen, F., and Stedman, R.C. (2018) ‘Sense of place and experimentation in urban sustainability transitions: The Resilience Lab in Carnisse, Rotterdam, The Netherlands’. Sustainability Science, 13, pp.1045-1059.
Goodin, R. and Dryzek, J. (2006). ‘Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini publics’. Politics and Society 34(2), pp.219–244.
Gottdiener, M. and Hutchinson, R. (2010). The New Urban Sociology. New York: Avalon Publishing.
Gualini, E. and Bianchi, I. (2015). “Space, Politics and Conflicts: A Review of Contemporary Debates in Urban Research and Planning Theory”, in Gualini, E., (eds) Planning and Conflict: Critical Perspectives on Contentious Urban Developments. London: Routledge, pp.37-56.
Gwee, J. (2015). ‘Introduction,’ in Gwee, J, (ed.) Case Studies: Building Communities in Singapore. Singapore: Civil Service College.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. and Cooke, M. (2001). On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hambleton, R. (2015) Shaping the Inclusive City: Place-based Innovation for a Bounded Planet. Bristol: Policy Press.
Harvey, D. (1973) Social Justice and the city. London: Edward Arnold Publishing.
Harvey, D. (2008). The Right to the City. New Left Review 53(53), pp.23–40.
Healy, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Place in Fragmented Societies. Canada: UBC Press.
Hee, L., and Ooi, G. L. (2003). ‘The politics of public space planning in Singapore’, Planning Perspectives, 18(1), pp.79-103.
Heller, A. and Adams, T. (2009). Creating healthy cities through socially sustainable placemaking, Australian Planner, 46(2), pp.18-22.
Hirschman, A. O. (1958). The Strategy of Economic Development. Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Hirschman, A. O. (1967). The principle of the hiding hand. Public Interest 6, pp.10-23.
Ho, K. (2003). Shared Responsibilities, Unshared Power: The politics of policy making in Singapore. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Holling, C. S. and Goldberg, M. A. (1971). ‘Ecology and planning’. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 37(4), pp.221-230.
Hou, J. (2013). (ed). Transcultural Cities: Border-Crossing and Placemaking. London: Routledge.
Hutchinson, R., and Lopes, J. T. (2017). “Introduction: Urban Space and Public Places”, in Hutchinson, R., and Lopes, J. T. (ed.) Public Spaces: Times of Crisis and Change. London: Emerald Group Publishing, pp.3-18.
Innes, J. E. (1995). ‘Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice’. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), pp.183–189.
Institute of Place Management (IPM). (2020). COVID-19 Recovery Framework. [online] Available at: https://www.placemanagement.org/covid-19/ [Accessed 6 August 2020]
Irazábal, C. (2009). ‘Realizing Planning’s Emancipatory Promise: Learning From Regime Theory To Strengthen Communicative Action’. Planning Theory, 8(2), pp.115-139.
Jacobs, A. and Appleyard, D. (1987) ‘Toward an urban design manifesto’, Journal of the American Planning Association 53(1), pp.112-120.
Jalal, A. (2018) ‘Small Projects are Closer to the Community’. Centre for Livable Cities: Urban Solutions, 12, pp. 27-29.
Kalandides, A. (2018). ‘Citizen participation: Towards a framework for policy assessment’. Journal of Place Management and Development, 1(2), pp.152–164.
Karge, T. (2018). ‘Placemaking and urban gardening: Himmelbeet case study in Berlin’. Journal of Place Management Development, 11, pp. 208–222.
Kearns, A. and Paddison, R. (2000). ‘New Challenges for Urban Governance’. Urban Studies, 37(5-6), pp.845-850.
Ker, L. T. and Tuminez, A. S. (2015) “The Social Dimension of Urban Planning in Singapore”, in Chan, D. (ed) 50 Years of Social Issues in Singapore. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Kwan, T. B. (2018). Developing a Livable & Sustainable Singapore. Singapore: Civil Service College.
Lefebvre, H. (1968). Writings on Cities. Oxford: Blackwell.
Legacy, C. (2019). ‘Platforms of Change and Interstitial Spaces’. Planning Theory & Practice, 20(4), pp. 469-471.
Leong, H. (2000). ‘Citizen Participation and Policy Making in Singapore: Conditions and Predicaments’. Asian Survey, 40(3), pp. 436-455.
Lévesque, L. (2013). “Trajectories of Interstitial Landscapeness: A Conceptual Framework for Territorial Imagination and Action.” A. M. Brighenti (ed) In Urban Interstices: The Aesthetics and the Politics of the In-Between. Burlington: Ashgate. pp. 21–63.
Lew, A. A. (2017). ‘Tourism planning and place making: place-making or placemaking?’. Tourism Geographies, 19(3), pp.448-466.
Lydon, M., and Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical urbanism. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Madanipour, A., Hull, A., and Healy, P. (2001). The Governance of Place: Space and Planning Processes. London: Ashgate Publishing.
Madanipour, A., Knierbein, S. and Degros, A. (2013). Public Space and The Challenges Of Urban Transformation In Europe. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Malone-Lee, L. (2020) “The Ecology of Neighbourhood Resilience: A Multi-disciplinary Perspective” in Leong, C. and Malone-Lee, L. (eds.) Building Resilient Neighbourhoods in Singapore: The Convergence of Policies, Research and Practice. Singapore: Springer.
Mannberg, M. and Wihlborg, E. (2007). ‘Communicative planning – friend or foe? Obstacles and opportunities for implementing sustainable development locally’. Sustainable Development, 16(1), pp.35-43.
Marana, P., Labaka, L., and Sarriegi, J. M. (2018) A framework for public-private-people partnerships in the city resilience-building process. Safety Science, 110(Part C), pp. 39-50.
Martin, D.B. (2003) “Place-Framing” as Place-Making: Constituting a Neighborhood for Organizing and Activism, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(3), pp. 730-750.
Mateo-Babiano, I. and Palipane, K. (2020). Placemaking Sandbox: Emergent Approaches, Techniques And Practices To Create More Thriving Places. 1st ed. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mateo-Babiano, I., and Lee, G. (2019). “People in Place: Placemaking Fundamentals”, in Hes, D., and Hernandez-Satin, C. (e.d.) Placemaking Fundamentals for the Built environment. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 15-38.
Matthews, T. (2015). ‘Storylines of institutional responses to climate change as a transformative stressor: the case of regional planning in South East Queensland, Australia’. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 0(0), pp. 1-18.
May, T. and Perry, B. (2011). Social Research and Reflexivity. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
McCann, E. (2002). ‘The cultural politics of local economic development: meaning-making, place-making, and the urban policy process’. Geoforum, 33(3), pp. 385-398.
Meyer, C. B. (2001). ‘A Case in Case Study Methodology’. Field Methods, 13(4), pp.329–352.
Mitchell, D. ( 2003). The Right To The City: Social Justice And The Fight For Public Space. New York: Guilford Press.
Myrick, P. (2011). The power of place: A new dimension for sustainable development. Project for Public Spaces. [online] Available at: https://www.pps.org (Accessed: 1 June 2020).
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The Content Analysis Guidebook. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Ong, J., Tong, C. and Tan, E. (1997). Citizen Orientation Towards Political Participation In Singapore. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Pieterse, E. (2018). Place-making in dissonant times. [online] Available at: https://urbanage.lsecities.net/essays/place-making-in-dissonant-times [Accessed 2 August 2020].
Platt, R. H. (2004) Land use and society. Washington DC: Island Press.
Price, P. L. (2013) “Place”, in N.C. Johnson, R.H. Schein and J. Winders (eds) The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Cultural Geography, (1st ed.), Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 118-129.
Project for Public Spaces (PPS). (2008). What Is Placemaking?. [online] Available at: https://www.pps.org/article/what-is-placemaking [Accessed 26 May 2020].
Project for Public Spaces (PPS). (2017). The Placemaking Process. [online] Available at: https://www.pps.org/article/5-steps-to-making-places [Accessed 3August 2020]
Richards, G. and Duif, L. (2019). Small Cities With Big Dreams: Creative Placemaking And Branding Strategies. New York: Routledge.
Romrice, O. et. al (2016). “Master Planning for Change: Design as a Way to Create the Conditions for Time Sensitive Place-making”, in AlWaer, H. and Illsley, B. (eds) Placemaking: Rethinking the Masterplanning Process. London: ICE Publisher. pp. 195-208.
Rowe, P. (2005). East Asia Modern: Shaping the Contemporary City. London: Reaktion Books.
Rowley, J. (2002). ‘Using Case Studies in Research’. Management Research News, 25(1), pp.16-26.
RTPI (2020) Enabling Healthy Placemaking: Overcoming Barriers and Learning from Best Practices. Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) Research Paper. [online] Available at: https://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/5777/enabling-healthy-placemaking.pdf [Accessed 1st August 2020].
Ruspini, E. and Melotti, M. (2016). How is the Millennial Generation Reshaping Cities and Urban Tourism, Conference ‘Urban Planning and Tourism Consumption’. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Russ A., Peters S. J., Krasny M.E., and Stedman R.C. (2015). ‘Development of ecological place meaning in New York City’. Journal of Environmental Education. 46(2), pp. 73–93.
Schneekloth, L. and Shibley, R. (1995). Placemaking: The Art and Practice Of Building Communities. New York: Wiley.
Scott, A. J. (2011). ‘Emerging Cities of the Third Wave.’ City 15 (3–4), pp. 289–381.
Scott, M. (2020). ‘Covid-19, Place-making and Health’. Planning Theory & Practice, 21(3), pp. 343-348,
Seamon, D. (2014). “Place Attachment and Phenomenology: The Synergistic Dynamism of Place”, in Manzon, L. C and Devine-Wright, P (eds.) Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications. London: Routledge.
Sen, N. (2020). URA Reviewing Urban Plans For CBD, Heartlands As Covid-19 ‘Sharpens Need’ For Changing Amenities In Districts. [online] TODAYonline. Available at: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ura-reviewing-urban-plans-cbd-heartlands-covid-19-sharpens-need-changing-amenities-districts [Accessed 4 August 2020].
Silberberg, S. (2013). Places in the Making: How placemaking builds place and communities. Department of Urban Studies and Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [online] Available at: https://dusp.mit.edu/sites/dusp.mit.edu/files/attachments/project/mit-dusp-places-in-the-making.pdf [Accessed 25 June 2020].
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994). ‘Grounded theory methodology: An overview’, in Desin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Strydom, W., and Puren, K. (2013). ‘A participatory approach to public space design as informative for place-making’. Challenges of Modern Technology, 4, pp. 33–40.
Swyngedouw, E. (2018). Promises of the political: Insurgent cities in a post-political environment. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Thomas, D. (2016). Placemaking: An Urban Design Methodology. London: Routledge.
Tidball, K., Stedman R. (2012). ‘Positive dependency and virtuous cycles: from resource dependence to resilience in urban social-ecological systems’. Ecol Econ, 86, pp.292–299.
Toolis, E. (2017). ‘Theorizing Critical Placemaking as a Tool for Reclaiming Public Space’. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(2), pp.184-199.
Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). (2016). Our Favourite Place – Supporting The Community To Enliven Public Spaces. [online] Available at: https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Media-Room/Media-Releases/pr16-20 [Accessed 10 June 2020].
Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). (2019b). RSVP: Reinventing Spaces Into Vibrant Places. [online] Available at: <https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Media-Room/Media-Releases/pr19-22> [Accessed 11 June 2020].
Vazquez, L. (2012) ‘Creative Placemaking: Integrating Community, Cultural and Economic Development’. SSRN Electronic Journal,.
Wesener, A., Fox-Kämper, R., Sondermann, M. and Münderlein, D. (2020). Placemaking in Action: Factors That Support or Obstruct the Development of Urban Community Gardens. Sustainability, 12(2), p. 657.
Wood, L. and Giles-Corti, B. (2008). ‘Is there a place for social capital in the psychology of health and place?’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 28(2), pp. 154-163.
Zitcer, A. (2018). ‘Making Up Creative Placemaking’. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0(0), pp.1-11.
Malvin Kaur 2020 Copyright
PropSherpa 