Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity

Case Studies of this working group

The list includes all case studies categorised in this group and the respective answers to the first question "Rationale:Why is this case study interesting?"

Attention: this is a dynamic page list, do not edit this paragraph!

<DPL>

 category=Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity
 mode=ordered
 include = #Rationale: Why is this case study interesting?

</DPL> Back to top

Core Questions of this Working Group

Core questions as identified during the first group meeting on December 3rd 2008:

1. Who was involved in the participation process? (Agnieska, Harun)
2. How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)? (Camilo, Andrew)
3. In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs? (Liliana, Martina)

Notes:

• The names behind the questions identify those people that take up a kind of editor's responsibility for the questions. All group members are asked to integrate all questions into their case study report. The respective question editors will then compile the different answers and report back to the group plenary on December 19th.

• People who did not attend the session on 3rd of December may have additional proposals for core questions. Feel free to add these questions as proposals to the list above and discuss it via e-mail or using the discussion page.

• Please integrate the questions soon and try to deliver some draft answers before December 15th - otherwise it will become difficult to create a synthesis report for December 17th.

Back to top

Synthesis of Core Questions

Who was involved in the participation process?

Agnieska , Harun

Answers of the Case Studies

<DPL>

 category=Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity
 mode=ordered
 include = #Who was involved in the participation process?

</DPL>

Synthesis

Back to top

How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)?

Camilo, Andrew

Answers of the Case Studies

<DPL>

 category=Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity
 mode=ordered
 include = #How was the participation process implemented (methods applied)?

</DPL>

Synthesis

	Budapest-Józsefváros	Medellin	Parks in Neu Oerlikon	Paseo del Buen Pastor	Petuelpark	Suleymaniye Regeneration Area	Uggledal
Initiation	Leaflets and local press – for promotion of process, Kick off meeting,Questionnaire	Public meetings - socialising and promoting the project and its process, Quantitative and qualitative surveys, Workshops and field visits (officials & community leaders)		Questionnaire in local newspaper and to people using the space, general, open questions		specific and limited questionnaire
Plan	Open meetings, surveys and interviews undertaken by students				Workshops – public, local officials, artist and professionals, interdisciplinary work		Workshops - women groups, professionals, school children- (formulated plan of area), Meetings – citizen groups
Design	Presentation of plan based on above material, vote on material to be constructed	Workshops to design the use and characteristics of the public spaces (community in general), review of the designs (officials & community leaders).			General workshops,specific workshops (children, disabled), interdisciplinary		Workshops - women groups, professionals, school children, meetings – citizen groups
Implementation	Design and realisation of sitting-hills (schools, students, NGO’s), Public planting in the square	Local, community press and billboards informing about the projects, Labour force for the construction of the projects was mainly from the community			Artist collaboration
Maintenance	Delegation of tasks to communities and institutions (in process)	Delegation of tasks to community and institutions, social programs and community activities have been established in the projects					Maintenance of several communal areas is responsibility of community groups

Concluding thoughts:

• ...
• ...
• ...

Back to top

. . .

In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs?

Liliana, Martina

Answers of the Case Studies

<DPL>

 category=Working Group Public Space and Civic Identity
 mode=ordered
 include = #In how far does/did the project respond to people's needs?

</DPL>

Summary

Budapest-Józsefváros: The request of participation was fulfilled in all phases of implementation and maintenance. There were design workshops with dwellers and local professionals, public consultations concerning the plans, voting on building materials, joint planting activities and equipment installation.

Medellin: The improvement of physical conditions in the slum bore some significant outcomes, for example high quality public spaces. But it should be more efforts in order to guarantee the livelihoods beyond the traditional approach such as housing and infrastructure. Furthermore it's important to improve the integration and the amount of comprehensiveness.

Parks in Neu Oerlikon: The four parks have a high artistic quality and were made for creating free space. The Wahlen Park is also used as a school meadow and is accepted well. The MFO Park reminds of the original buildings, is designed in different levels and some attractions are temporary or long-term existing. The Oerliker Park is seen as worse integrated and the idea, that users affect a new appearance of the park, doesn’t work yet. The lower utilization leads back to the very far construction of the new quarter Oerlikon within 5 years. As a result there is a lack of development, less own character and clinical, empty feeling.

Paseo del Buen Pastor: It fulfills the need of a new open place, of having alternatives for activities as well as the possibility for interactions with the society through art, culture and history in order to reinforce the identity.

Petuelpark: It responds to the need of having a green space for recreation. There are many different elements and possibilities for individual leisure activities, but it's a decrease while wintertime. Works of art, individual designed places and furniture and the typical style of the park, fulfills the requirement of having a unique place with own character.

Suleymaniye Regeneration Area: The ambition is to reach social and economical integration joint together to physical interventions.

Sulzer Factory Area: This area is marked by its need for adaptability. Nowadays, the human were brought into focus and the space is used as place of congregation.

Uggledal: It was a wish of the planner to preserve the specialties and characteristics of this area. So the local inhabitants who had ecological ambitions participate while the planning process. But the new inhabitant had aesthetic preferences.

Synthesis

Back to top

Working Group Minutes

First Group Meeting

• Minutes from WG meeting - Public Space