By Malvin Kaur BA MSc
Introduction
Cities are complex products of their local communities and spaces, continually shaped by economic, social and cultural developments. However, traditional planning regimes still remain firmly rooted within planning systems, where ‘locally distinctive and responsive planning’ efforts are replaced in favour of ‘delivering an agenda imposed from outside the community.’ (Campion, 2018) The creativity of communities remains a largely untapped resource, and coupled with the effects of urban sprawl, this has led to a sense of ‘placeless-ness’ and a mistrust between institutions and civic societies. (Silberberg, 2013)
In response, the concept of placemaking has been used as a tool to situate ‘people’ at the core of contemporary planning practices by employing a participatory process to gain a deeper understanding of community perceptions and aspirations. (Mateo-Babiano & Lee, 2019) Placemaking is a multidisciplinary function, an evolving process that, when it responds to transformative stressors such as COVID-19, it is in a state of constant reinvention and reinterpretation.
Nevertheless, whilst it has been explored in global contexts, the capacity of placemaking to go beyond a small scale contribution to innovative urban planning remains an area of debate that is gaining traction in literature and practice. It is therefore important that the subject area be examined in depth, its actuality scrutinized, and its ideology and implementation be contextually analysed.
Place Making Frameworks and Community Input
Physical places are significant in the spatial dynamics of the urban environment, where forms of social exchange are enabled through the programming of activities within these spaces. (Madanipour & Hull, 2001) However, current progressions in the concepts of a modern urban city have witnessed profound change, with stronger focus on active civic involvement in the democratic decision-making process. (Wesener, et.al., 2020) Such developments have called for flexible and adaptive solutions in response to the complex dynamics of public spaces in urban environments. There is an urgent need to address the question of whether there can be a balance between top-down and bottom up approaches in urban planning through the incorporation of community input into planning frameworks.
From this, there can be an exploration of the relationship between placemaking and the long-term development plans of a city. As people continue to be a major component of the urban fabric, the ability of placemaking to recognise the social realities and needs of society can provide a concrete practice in pushing forward the long-term vision urban development. (Cilliers & Timmermans, 2014)
There continues to be widespread interest to study innovative approaches to urban planning in response to major challenges inflicted by the pandemic as well the application of placemaking across the globe in response to urban issues. There have been explorations of placemaking in particular contexts, however minimal discussion is targeted at addressing the efficiency and effectiveness of its implementation in practice and the wider benefits that can be derived from it.
As this is an area of new debate, new research seeks to carry out an in-depth study on the experimentation and the long-term viability of placemaking and the recurring question that arises time and again is to what extent are community-driven initiatives a vital element in securing effective placemaking for the purpose of creating a more sustainable future urban fabric. This series of papers seeks to address this question.
It will question the capacity of placemaking built on community-driven initiatives, within public spaces, in offering a successful approach when tackling the societal, health and safety challenges cities face today. An analysis of Singapore as an Asian case study has been carried out with an examination of the placemaking movement in order to better understand why it has emerged and whether it can be sustained within future planning systems.
Defining Placemaking
The ideology behind placemaking has existed since the 1960’s. Championed by urbanists Jane Jacobs and William H. Whyte, it led to the introduction of a practice that focuses on reinventing and reimagining public spaces through acknowledging the evolution of ‘physical, cultural and social identities that define a place’. (PPS, 2008) Following its inception, developing interests and research around the implementation of placemaking initiatives have gained traction particularly through organizations like the Project for Public Spaces (PPS), a non-profit organization based in New York, focused on creating and sustaining public spaces to build resilient communities.
However, while these concepts have existed for decades, a clear definition behind its practice still remains absent. It is a term that generally represents a broad strategy deployed by policy makers and urban planners to ‘incorporate sustainability considerations into urban and industrial development. (Ghavampour & Vale, 2019). Similarly, academics and planning practitioners have proposed an array of definitions and terms around the ‘human-centered’ (Myrick, 2011), and ‘tactical’ (Lydon & Garcia, 2018) nature of placemaking, or as a wider discussion around ‘theories of aesthetic perceptions’ (Ghavampour & Vale, 2019).
In this analysis, placemaking is defined not by design of physical space but the creation of meaningful places where place production is based on a specific local ecology and landscape. It has examined the construction behind physical settings of the urban environment, acknowledging and understanding social interactions, policy, power and the economy that define people’s relationships with each other and within the space they inhabit. (Ghavampour & Vale, 2019).
It investigated the integrated approach to urbanism that placemaking generates, where engagement, innovation and its locally targeted interventions are its key elements. As argued by Carmona, places are largely shaped by urban policy, investment decisions and management strategies, thus integrated strategies that focus on understanding both physical and social-cultural layers of a place are part and parcel behind the execution of effective placemaking. (Carmona, 2003)
It is a form of urbanism that goes beyond conventional approaches of planning, seeking to involve civic society into the planning scene who may not otherwise participate, hence fostering integration between people and institutions. This study has hypothesized that the incorporation of public perspective can directly affect the planners understanding of a community’s needs. Similar to Schneekloth and Shibley’s view, this research defines effective placemaking as creating a dialogue where groups of people are able to ‘affirm, interrogate and construct the knowledge’ they require to create and maintain their own places (Schneekloth & Shibley’s, 1995). This in turn facilitates a merging relationship between planning authorities and civilians, where communities can inform, shape and help specialists in framing an action for better future planning practices.
The Bibliography is the same as outlined in Part 1 posted earlier on December 14, 2020 on PropSherpa.com
Malvin Kaur 2021 Copyright
PropSherpa 