Medellin: Difference between revisions
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
=== Core Questions Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity === | === Core Questions Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity === | ||
==== Who was involved in the participation process? ==== | ==== Who was involved in the participation process? ==== | ||
In the PUI Model participation is planned above all as a mechanism for recovering the belief and trust of the communities that for many years have had only apathy towards the Administration. This objective was not only the vision of the PUI Model but of the Administration in general. By doing so, it was EXPECTED to enhance transparency and accountability of the public funds as well as enhance sustainability by ensuring stakeholder ownership, making information available and developing local capacities. Additionally it was EXPECTED to allow the experts to have a closer insight of the areas as well as making decisions that are closer to the needs of the community. | |||
In the PUI Noriental, sector assemblies where implemented in the beginning of the process to communicate to the people the objectives of the project as well as to identify actors and organizations that were present in the area. After doing so, there was a division of the whole area in 4 smaller ones based on the different aspects and characteristics of the “Comuna Noriental”. Based on this division a Community Committee was created for each of the areas, in order to serve as the link with the community and to work closer with the project based on their representativeness. It can be identified to ways in which the community participates in the planning process: the “whole” community of each of the 4 areas via sector assemblies; and the Community Committee via smaller meetings and workshops. This is an interesting approach since involving all stakeholders to a participatory process is almost an impossible task in practice. In principle this approach can be consider as an ideal one when deciding who and how many people should participate in the process. However, there are some issues that need to be considered when looking in detail how this approach was put in practice. | |||
==== How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? ==== | ==== How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? ==== | ||
==== In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? ==== | ==== In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? ==== | ||
Revision as of 10:26, 8 December 2008
Social Urbanism: Enhancing community building and social capital through public space
| Name | please enter the name here | |
| Place | Medellin | |
| Country | Colombia | |
| Topic | please enter the topic here | |
| Author(s) | Camilo Calderon | |
| Completion | Please enter the date of completion | |
| Client | Please enter the client | |
| Project costs | Please enter the costs (if known) | |
| ||
| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="6.246193" lon="-75.568256" type="satellite" zoom="13" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap> | ||
Rationale: Why is this case study interesting?
The case study is related to a highly discussed issue present in many cities of the developing world today; it brings forward the importance of facing the challenges that slums create to today’s cities and the mechanisms used for tackling such challenge. The case study focuses on the use of Participatory Planning approaches in the context of slum upgrading. It is built around a case study in the city of Medellin, Colombia where there was a strong political will and commitment to implement programs and projects in the poorest areas of the city. This initiative emerged as a need to tackle deep rooted problems present in the slum areas of the city that together with other issues placed Medellin as the most dangerous city of the world during the 1990s.
For tackling such a problem, the local Administration (2003-2007) created a slum upgrading model called “PUI - Proyecto Urbano Integral” (Integral Urban Project) which is said to be based on “participatory planning” and “slum upgrading” principles. The creation of new public spaces was the most important action of the PUI. The results of the first project following the “PUI Model”, the “PUI Noriental”, have been promoted by the Administration as highly successful and been considered as a model for slum upgrading both nationally and internationally.
Author's perspective
- What theoretical or professional perspective do you bring to the case study?
Landscape and/or urban context
- Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics
Illustration: Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses
Cultural/social/political context
- Brief explanation of culture, political economy, legal framework
Illustration: Bullet points, image, background notes
History
- How did the area/project/plan at the focus of the case study evolve?
Illustration: Table or time line
Spatial analysis of area/project/plan
- What are the main structural features?
- How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes
Core Questions Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity
Who was involved in the participation process?
In the PUI Model participation is planned above all as a mechanism for recovering the belief and trust of the communities that for many years have had only apathy towards the Administration. This objective was not only the vision of the PUI Model but of the Administration in general. By doing so, it was EXPECTED to enhance transparency and accountability of the public funds as well as enhance sustainability by ensuring stakeholder ownership, making information available and developing local capacities. Additionally it was EXPECTED to allow the experts to have a closer insight of the areas as well as making decisions that are closer to the needs of the community.
In the PUI Noriental, sector assemblies where implemented in the beginning of the process to communicate to the people the objectives of the project as well as to identify actors and organizations that were present in the area. After doing so, there was a division of the whole area in 4 smaller ones based on the different aspects and characteristics of the “Comuna Noriental”. Based on this division a Community Committee was created for each of the areas, in order to serve as the link with the community and to work closer with the project based on their representativeness. It can be identified to ways in which the community participates in the planning process: the “whole” community of each of the 4 areas via sector assemblies; and the Community Committee via smaller meetings and workshops. This is an interesting approach since involving all stakeholders to a participatory process is almost an impossible task in practice. In principle this approach can be consider as an ideal one when deciding who and how many people should participate in the process. However, there are some issues that need to be considered when looking in detail how this approach was put in practice.
How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)?
In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs?
Analysis of program/function
- What are the main functional characteristics?
- How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes
Analysis of design/planning process
- How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
- Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes
Analysis of use/users
- How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
- Is the use changing? Are there any issues?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes
Future development directions
- How is the area/project/plan evolving?
- Are there any future goals?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes
Peer reviews or critique
- Has the area/ project/plan been reviewed by academic or professional reviewers?
- What were their main evaluations?
Pleas add references, quotes...
Points of success and limitations
- What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table
What can be generalized from this case study?
- Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes
Which research questions does it generate?
Short statement plus background notes
Image Gallery
"Talleres de Imaginarios por Proyecto" - Public Participation Workshops Source: EDU - Empresa de Desarrollo Urbano
"Parque del Ajedrez, Paseo Andalucia and Parque de La paz y La Cultura" - before and after Source: Empresa de Desarrollo Urbano – EDU
References
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories