Prostor casopis

8/9/2019 Prostor casopis

1/14

P R O

S T O R

ZNANSTVENI ÈASOPIS ZA ARHITEKTURU I URBANIZAMA SCHOLARLY JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING

22 [2014] 2 [48

ISSN 1330-0652CODEN PORREVUDK | UDC 71/7222 [2014] 2 [48]159-3687-12 [2014]

SVEUÈILIŠTEU ZAGREBU,ARHITEKTONSKIFAKULTETUNIVERSITYOF ZAGREB,FACULTYOF ARCHITECTURE

POSEBNI OTISAK / SEPARAT OFFPRINT

22 [2014] 2 [48

188-199 Kaja Pogaèar ‘Urban activator’ - Participatoryand Bottom-up Tool of Urban

ChangeDefinition and Selected Examples

Subject ReviewUDC 711.4-163:711.61

‘Urbani aktivator’ - partbottom-up alat za urban

promjeneDefinicija i izabrani primjer

Pregledni znanstveni èlanakUDK 711.4-163:711.61

Znanstveni prilozi Scientific Papers


2/14

Fig. 1. Participatory urban intervention on devastated area in Marseilles for the needs of the European Capital of Culture ‘Yes we camp Marseilles 2013’.

Sl. 1. Participativna urbana intervencija u devastiranome podruèju Marseillea za potrebe europske prijestolnice kulture ‘Yes we camp Marseilles 2013’.


3/14

Scientific Papers | Znanstveni prilozi 22[2014] 2[48] PROS

Kaja Pogaèar

‘Urban activator’ - Participatory and Bottom-up Toolof Urban ChangeDefinition and Selected Examples

‘Urbani aktivator’ - participativni bottom-up alatza urbane promjeneDefinicija i izabrani primjeri

bottom-up interventionspublic participationrevitalisationurban activatorvacant spaces

The paper investigates participatory and bottom-up supported interventionsfor the revitalisation of degraded and abandoned urban areas with the help ofthe tool called urban activator . Based on selected examples, the approaches,actors and impacts of small architectural interventions in the process of acti-vating and regenerating urban space will be presented.

Rad istražuje participativne bottom-up intervencije usmjerene revitgradiranih i napuštenih urbanih podruèja pomoæu alata nazvanogvator (urbani aktivator). Na temelju odabranih primjera prikazat æesudionici i utjecaji manjih arhitektonskih intervencija u procesu aobnove urbanoga prostora.

bottom-up intervencijesudjelovanje javnostirevitalizacijaurbani aktivatorprazni prostori

University of MariborFaculty of Civil EngineeringDepartment of ArchitectureSlovenia - 2000 Maribor, Smetanova 17

[email protected]

Subject Review

UDC 711.4-163:711.61

Technical Sciences / Architecture and Urban Planning2.01.02. - Urban and Physical Planning

Article Received / Accepted: 28. 5. 2014. / 8. 12. 2014.

Sveuèilište u MariboruGraðevinski fakultetOdsjek za arhitekturuSlovenija - 2000 Maribor, Smetanova 17

[email protected]

Pregledni znanstveni èlanak

UDK 711.4-163:711.61

Tehnièke znanosti / Arhitektura i urbanizam2.01.02. - Urbanizam i prostorno planiranje

Èlanak primljen / prihvaæen: 28. 5. 2014. / 8. 12. 2014.


4/14

190 PROSTOR 2[48] 22[2014] 188-199 K. POGAÈAR ‘Urban activator’ - Participatory and Bottom-up Tool… Scientific Papers | Znanstveni p

INTRODUCTION

U VOD

The paper examines the characteristics ofthe current, predominantly informal approachto spatial revitalisation and redevelopment,focusing on degraded and abandoned urbanareas with the help of the tool called the ur-ban activator . This approach is fundamen-tally different from the practices used in

previous decades, which typically employedtop-down principles to deciding upon andplanning spatial interventions, on a notablylarge scale and without particular involve-ment and participation of the interested pub-lic. In contrast, bottom-up1 urban interven-tions and the participation2 of the interestedpublic are emerging as a new type of localprojects in times of the economic crisis, ascontemporary, creative and efficient approach-es to solving social, economic and relatedspatial issues are urgently needed.

In this respect, urban activators are regardedas smaller bottom-up architectural urban in-terventions that attempt to instigate a long-

term process at a generally low cost and withsmart, even provocative3 solutions, thus acti-vating and revitalising degraded and abando-ned urban spaces. Nowadays, urban environ-ments are characterised by many underusedspatial resources4 - abandoned industrial,commercial and residential buildings, urbanvacant lots, unbridled courtyards and publicfacilities without financial support, which canbe redeveloped into attractive, functionaland lively spaces primarily through local ini-

tiatives and committed individuals. Spaas quoted in the New Charter of Athencritical natural resource, limited in subut with growing demands upon it”.5 Cotually, the usefulness and functionality oderused and already built areas within cshould be increased, while their social caity should also be enhanced and streened by transforming these passive istructures into public assets.6

Based on these premises, we postulatethe urban activator can be understoodtool that can address the restructurinspace in a softer, more accessible maespecially in harsh economic and socialditions. It is founded on small urban intetions with the help of public particip”providing citizens with opportunities topart in decision or planning process”.7

paper poses the thesis that the urban actor could become a general tool for exaing the relevance and merits of spatial i

ventions even in times of prosperity.

DEFINITION

DEFINICIJA

The urban activator can be defined as a sphysical manifestation, i.e. an architecintervention in the urban space, which stlates development and is accompaniethe maximum possible social impact in tof connecting people, enhancing the sfabric and appropriating the space. The ess itself is aimed at participation8, incla wide scope of interested actors, prom

the articulation of problems and opporties, monitors responses and acts cohesand responsibly towards space and socIn most cases, the urban activator is nready-made structure but is created w

1 The term ‘bottom-up’ first appeared in relationopposite ‘top-down’ in 1942 in a journal of economan urban context, this approach has two key, comptary directions: first, a trend that encourages sociaperative models of city organisation; second, a grinterest from government officials, academia, and thfessional sector in resorting to digital, open-sourceand models as key resources for understanding urbteractions. [http://www.bmwguggenheimlab.org/bantrends, 25.3.2014]2 According to Glass (1979), participation can b

ned as ”providing citizens with opportunities to takin decision or planning process”. According to La2004, it is suggested that ”desirable participation that enables citizens to shape planning decisions atcomes while increasing their level of social and pempowerment”. [Mohammadi, 2010: 5]

3 Harvey, 20124 It is estimated that there are ca. 11 million empperties in Europe, 3.4 m in Spain and a consid175,000 in Slovenia. [http://www.stat.si / http://ww guardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/europe-11m-e-properties-enough-house-homeless-continent-twi2.2014]

5 New Charter of Athens, 2003: 1


5/14

Scientific Papers | Znanstveni prilozi ‘Urban activator’ - Participatory and Bottom-up Tool… K. POGAÈAR 188-199 22[2014] 2[48] PROSTO

the community; the creative and participa-tory approach before, during and after its de-velopment is essential.9 This forms the iden-tity10, affiliation and responsibility towardspace and the community. In this way, urbanspace can be revitalised in terms of sustain-ability, since it establishes a two-way con-nection with its users. This social ecosystem

is thus characterised by architectural inter-ventions into space that generally carry littleeconomic value, but have a much higher so-cial value due to the process of participationand connecting actors based on their own en-gagement (Fig. 3). As argued by Huybrechts,participation as such is primarily about peo-ple but also about objects, since objects me-diate communication between people.11 Therefore, what is crucial in the case of theurban activator besides the process itself isthat a minimum physical intervention is ap-plied as a significant element of the initiation,as a mediating element, as a facilitator of fur-ther change.

The urban activator as a technical or profes-sional term is not generally established in thefields of architecture and urbanism but occa-sionally appears within these contexts. In il-lustration, the term was used in the descrip-tion of the spatial intervention on the Gro-tekerkplein square in Rotterdam12, displayingthe example of the discussed concept (Fig.4). In the analysed phrase, the word ‘activa-tor’ could be replaced by several synonyms,such as the mediator, the motivator, the ini-tiator. The ‘urban catalyst’ carries similarmeaning in the sense of catalysing urbanchange; it was used to name the ‘Urban Cata-

lyst’13

office established in Berlin, which hasimplemented many projects and publishedpublications on temporary spatial interven-tions with an emphasis on degraded andmarginal urban sites. Moreover, parallel con-

cepts are presented in The Temporary City 14 and other publications ( Temporary urbanspaces: concepts for the use of city space,2006; Urban Pioneers: Temporary use andurban developments in Berlin, 2007; Hand-made urbanism: from community initiativesto participatory models, 2013 )15, which high-light the significance of simple, bottom-upand temporary spatial design concepts as themost effective and fastest responses tochanges and needs in today’s times in con-trast to the glorification of permanence in ur-banism. As argued by Bishop and Williams,”Instead some are beginning to experiment

with looser planning and design frameworks,linked to phased packages of smaller, oftentemporary initiatives, designed to unlock thepotentials of sites now, rather than in 10years’ time”.16 Furthermore, they expose thenew circumstances that are favourable tosmall participatory temporary projects suchas a) political and economic uncertainty , b)vacancy (i.e. having a multitude of underusedareas), c) the revolution in work (i.e. workingat home), d) intensity in the use of space (i.e.

6 Fernandez, 2013

7 Mohammadi, 2010: 5, orig.: Glass, 1979

8 Müller, Stotten, 2011

9 Franck, Howard, 2010

10 The meanings of space facilitate the emergence ofstrong connections between the place, the person and theworld. These cognitions include memories, ideas, emo-tions, views, values, meanings, concepts, behaviours andexperience related to the everyday environment. [Carr, etal., 1992]

11 Huybrechts, 201412 In 2004, the programme revitalisation of the area ofthe Grotekerkplein Square was prompted by a private un-profitable organisation, which launched the process ofparticipation with local residents and the city council. Theelement of reactivating life on the square was establishedby setting up a smaller multi-purpose theatre podium.

13 Also a book with the same title by: Oswaldt, Over-meyer, Misselwitz, 2013

14 Bishop, Williams, 2012

15 Haydn, Temel, 2006; Overmeyer, 2007; Rosa, Wei-land, ed., 2013

16 Bishop, Williams, 2012: 3

Fig. 2. The Eclectis project is an experimenparticipation processes and artistic intethe urban spaceSl. 2. The Eclectis project je eksperimentaparticipativnih procesa i umjetnièkih inteu urbanome prostoru

Fig. 3. Union Press located on Flat Iron Sqin London is a public works project, commby a non-profit organisation called BankUrban ForestSl. 3. Union Press (na Trgu Flat Iron) u Loprojekt javnih radova koje naruèuje neproorganizacija Bankside Urban Forest

Fig. 4. Grotekerkplein in Rotterdam beforafter the ‘Urban activator’ (small theatrwas installed

Sl. 4. Grotekerkplein u Rotterdamu prije instaliranja urbanog aktivatora (mali podogaðanja)


6/14


contemporary multi-use of space), e) coun-terculture and activism (i.e. inadequate sup-ply of activities by the private real estate mar-ket), f) new technologies (i.e. use of smartphones, internet, GPS, etc.) and g) creativemilieus (i.e. the creative sector is most sus-ceptible to using and occupying marginal ar-eas or vacant buildings).17

In the recent decade, the described circum-stances have facilitated a significant rise insmaller bottom-up supported initiatives andrelated projects, which have established amuch more spontaneous and democratic(partly even illegal) relationship towards spa-tial planning and use than was known untilrecently. Many of them have already proventheir impact on contemporary urban develop-ment, such as raumlaborberlin (Germany),CityBee (Denmark), Social Spaces (Belgium),muf architecture/art (England), STEALTH , Plat- forma 9.81 (Croatia), ProstoRož (Slovenia),Urban Catalyst (Germany), etc. (Fig. 5).18

The following section will present the theore-tical background of the urban activator - theorigins of the bottom-up model and partici-pation practices in the planning literature.

INFORMAL BOTTOM-UP P ARTICIPATION,THE THEORETICAL B ACKGROUND

NEFORMALNA BOTTOM-UP PARTICIPACIJA , TEORIJSKA PODLOGA

The concept of the urban activator substan-tiates the approach of informal bottom-upactivities through stakeholder participation;in a wider context, it paved its way as a new

spatial planning trend in two waves, the firstone commencing in the 1960s and the secondone in the 1990s.19 In contrast to that, theconviction that public space affairs can onlybe solved formally by planning carried out ex-clusively by specialists, who possess exper-tise and experience, was still deeply rooted inthe early 20th century. According to Tugwell,it was believed that ordinary minds are notcapable of dealing with such complex issuesand therefore cannot be involved in decision-making processes. ”Planning therefore cameto be seen as scientific endeavour whereplanners in their collective wisdom producedcomprehensive plans and budgets, laid out

as ‘rational’ design, and safeguarded fromthe self-serving meddling of the politicians”.20 Within two decades after the WW2, the reac-tion towards industrial capitalism, injustice,exploitation, poverty, repression of minori-ties, etc., facilitated political movements interms of ”democratisation and co-determina-tion”21 and what Friedman22 calls ”social mo-bilisation”23; these movements contributedto establishing new ethical principles suchas sustainable development, rapid growth of

democracy and human rights, developconcepts of civil society and present cureactions. Amongst other, they triggercritical situation in urban planning, whichforced to change its approach ”from th perative and technocratic to participatorydemocratic one”.24

At the time, Jane Jacobs was also in searalternative development and was amthose who were criticising the expansand construction of the modernist-baseies, arguing that large urban interventioparticular the urban renewal, did not resthe needs of most city dwellers. In The Dand Life of Great American Cities (196number of sociological concepts such a‘eyes of the street’ and the term ‘social tal’ were introduced. Though without uthe term ‘bottom-up’, she advocated theapproach, namely the importance and roactive citizens for providing live and genurban spaces.25

Since the 1960s, according to Pal, planbegan to listen more attentively to the vof the people and public participationgiven an official blessing in urban renand other public planning programmewell as in legislation.26 The series of inationally important documents withincontext of sustainability were amongforerunners that started including publicticipation in legislation, beginning withNational Environmental Policy Act [Nadopted in 1969.27 The concept of sustble development became inaugurated Agenda 21 (United Nations Conference ovironment and Development in Rio de Jan1992), which was crucial for addressingimportance of local authorities as the closest to the people.28 The Aalborg Ch(The Charter of European Sustainable Cand Towns Towards Sustainability, adoin 1994) referred to participation as a costone of the sustainability strategy; las

17 Bishop, Williams, 2014: 21-3518 http://citybee.dk; http://www.socialspaces.be//www.muf.co.uk; http://www.stealth.ultd.net; hraumlabor.net; http://www.platforma981.hr; http:/prostoroz.org; http://www.urbancatalyst.net

19 Pal, 2008; Mohammadi, 2010; Müller, Stotte20 Pal, 2008: 14, orig.: Tugwell, 1939

21 Müller, Stotten, 2011: 622 In his work Planning in the Public Domain (John Friedman set the theoretical foundation to dping an understanding of the relationship betweenners (seen as experts), the state (constituted of erepresentatives of the people) and citizens themsel

23 Pal, 2008: 15, orig.: Friedman, 198724 Mohammadi, 2010: 225 Jacobs, 196126 Pal, 2008: 1527 While the National Environmental Policy Act environmental law of the United States, it is referrethe modern day ”environmental magna charta”.

Fig. 5. Union Street Urban Orchard - after theLondon Festival of Architecture in 2010 the 100Union Street site was transformed into an urbanorchard and community gardenSl. 5. Union Street Urban Orchard - nakonlondonskoga Festivala arhitekture 2010. lokacijaUnion Street 100 preureðena je u urbani voænjaki zajednièki vrt


7/14


not least, the Aarhus Convention (adopted in1998 and entering into force in 2001) exposedthe importance of the access to informationas well as the importance of public partici-pation in decision-making processes. Theabove-mentioned agreements have estab-lished new standards regarding public par-ticipation in decision-making processes; abo-ve all, they have set a strong impulse forspreading the participatory approach alsointo not strictly environmental but spatialmatters with the goal of ‘meeting the needsof all human beings’ and leading to betteroutcomes, when a broader spectrum of peo-ple concerned is included in the planningprocesses. In practice, the introduction ofpublic participation in spatial planning proc-esses still varies considerably; in some areas,it remains in its infancy (primarily southernand eastern European countries, includingSlovenia and Croatia), while the practice ofpublic participation is already well-estab-

lished elsewhere (e.g. mid- and northern Eu-ropean countries, particularly Denmark, Swit-zerland, Austria).

In general, the participation itself can be dif-ferentiated between formal (constituted) andinformal (unconstituted), whereas the lattercan also be viewed as ”a laboratory for par-ticipation, where new approaches and meth-ods are often implemented”.29 On the otherhand, participation can also be distinguishedthrough the direction in which it is initiated,approached, offered or demanded - that isfrom the ‘top down’ or from the ‘bottom up’.Differences between these two are presentedin Table I, whereas the subject of research,

the urban activator, represents the bottom-up approach.

The theoretical backbone of the ‘bottom-up’approach is based on ‘The theory of commu-nicative action’ (1984) by the German philos-opher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas. Thetheory referred to as ‘collaborative planning’

was developed as a response to imposingplanning from the experts from top to downand has directly affected the change of theparadigm.30 The focus of planning had beenoriented towards the ‘process’ and not to-wards the ‘outcome’ as typical for the top-down model dominant in the planning prac-tice until the 1990s. The process is based onthe ”consensus with stakeholders and inter-est groups in planning through debate, nego-tiation and discourse”, whereas the role ofthe planner changed to ”mostly mediatingamong stakeholders”.31 The Habermas Theo-ry of communicative action emphasises theimportance of the dialogue - which underliesthe very essence of our humanity - the needto share, to communicate, to reach other hu-man beings and touch them deeply.32 Al-though it is clear that hierarchical decisionmaking by itself is no longer sufficient to re-solve urban problems, it is important to un-derstand that both approaches (top-downand bottom-up) have their own potentialsand limits.33

REACTIVATING UNDERUSED URBAN SPACES

PONOVNO AKTIVIRANJE NEISKORIŠTENIH URBANIH PROSTORA

The main starting point of the urban activatorpresents detecting underused, downgradedand dysfunctional places in cities. In ‘Loosespace’ 34, the authors expose the multitude ofpublic spaces that can be appropriated tomeet their own needs and desires, as well asdifferent possibilities for uses that were orig-inally not intended for those locations. The

list of public places where the concept can beapplied is long, from leftover spaces withinthe cities such as unused grounds next to therivers or areas next to infrastructural objects,to plots of closed-down factories, public plac-es without content or distinct character, emp-ty courtyards within housing units or evenatypical places such as ‘Between-spaces’35 that can be found around the canals of Am-sterdam. Not only sociological issues butalso economical aspects are forcing us to re-use and rearrange this surprisingly largescope of unused spaces36 in urban areas. Ascited in one of the first books on temporaryurbanism Urban Pioneer , ”an empty property

poses an economical dilemma to its owner;without constant maintenance the propertyno longer meets the market standards, whileunpopulated it is exposed to vandalism andsquatting. An empty property projects poorimage on its surrounding, contributing to ageneral decline in market value in its area”.37 On the other hand, activating citizens andtransforming them from passive consumersinto active participants in decision-makingprocesses and co-creators of urban space is

28 Müller, Stotten, 2011: 6

29 Müller, Stotten, 2011: 7

30 Harris, 2002: 21

31 Mohammadi, 2010: 2

32 Friedman, 1987: 74

33 Mohammadi, 2010: 2

34 Frank, Stevens, 2005 35 The project called ‘Tussen-ruimte’ or ‘Between-spa-ce’ initiated by several Dutch architectural offices mapped‘between-spaces’ as open alleys, hidden courtyards andother unused spaces in the Amsterdam canal area as thefirst stage of their project. The project aimed at promotionand revitalisation of these unused and unusual places incollaboration with artists and architects. [http://tussen-ruimte.com /2.5.2014/]

36 A considerable share of underused areas can befound in post-industrial cities, in cities in transition andthose affected by the economic crisis.

37 Overmeyer [ed.], 2007: 6

Table I. Differences between the top-dowand bottom-up approachTabl. I. Razlike izmeðu tzv. top-down prisi bottom-up pristupa

Top down Bottom

Initiative Begins withadministration/policy; often

involves issueswhich should besolved efficientlyand broadlysupported

Beginssocietyorgani

or comindivid

Target group Defined by the topicPotential interestis a prerequisite

Forms organi

Topic Set throughpolicy planningor programmes

Evolveeveryd

Concernment Must be developedbased on the topic

Exists main m

Awareness Must be developedwith relevantinformation andawarenesscampaigns

Develoexperieworkintopic o

Motivation More efficiency, lessopposition, betterlegitimacy

Social and wichange

Direction ofimpact

Seeks activity andengagement fromthe ‘top’

Seeks changeand adtion (‘tthe bot

Forms ofactivity

Planned byadministration;often with externalmoderation

Originathe proby appknown


8/14


also significant. As noted by Zotes, ”the aimis to activate urban public space by setting inmotion certain aspects of the public, social,political, cultural, and economic spheres ofthe city, in order to generate or accelerateparticular reactions in the users”. Further-more, Zotes notes that there is an urgentneed to find new ways to reclaim public spac-es and urban structures in order to challengethe limited and outdated uses for which theywere originally intended, since cities are in-creasingly becoming more restrictive and ex-clusionary, not only in physical terms but alsoin terms of self-autonomy and spontaneous

social manifestation.38

A good example of such activation is an inter-vention on a disused urban vacant lot be-tween two residential buildings located in adensely populated part of Paris39, which hasbeen facing pressing social issues. The urbanintervention was developed as a model ex-ample of cross-sectoral cooperation betweenresidents (as initiators), local organisations,experts in urban planning40 and the city au-thorities. Based on consultation and identify-

ing wishes and needs through participevents, workshops and temporary ‘instions’, an informal space aimed at activand participation of the local communitycreated. The example of developingcourtyard and the structure separatingpublic space from the semi-public sshows that spaces with a rich identity,tent and vitality can be created with a tively low budget and high social engage(Fig. 6). The Passage 56 project supportidea that public space is not created mas a result of the designed physical constion but is unceasingly developed as socultural and political production.41

It is essential to realise that in the futurenicipalities (and states) will have less reses for public programmes and thus also forevitalisation of spaces, and that it will beessary to engage various, not only formators so as to ensure positive changes inurban space. We must be aware of thethat in times of prosperity, economic grand affluence the relationship towards sand spatial interventions is often diffegenerally more ambitious42 and wastefulin terms of investments and the spatial s(Fig. 9). On the contrary, approaches inclua certain extent of activism, social engment, etc., inevitably emerge and are doped in times of austerity and economicsocial instability.43 They are based on tions that should be closer to the actual nand wishes of people, but also more affoble for individuals and society.

In previous decades, the bottom up approf urban interventions was frequently d

38 Zotes, 2012 [http://www.eme3.org/?p=684 2013/] 39 http://www.publicspace.org [25.2.2014]40 The architecture atelier ‘aaa’, studio for self-ged architecture from Paris, played an important the project. The atelier acts through the so-calledtactics used to promote public participation and senagement of urban areas so as to overcome deep-rstereotypes about urban planning. It proposes nomversible projects and initiates neglected practicesexamining the potential of the contemporary city wpect to population, mobility and temporality. Theythat ”it is by micro-political acting that we want to ppate in making the city more ecological and more cratic, to make the space of proximity less dependtop-down processes and more accessible to its u[http://www.urbantactics.org /22.3.2014/]41 Bordas, 2011

42 Due to harsh economic and social conditionsEuropean countries have even been faced with resito ambitious urban planning interventions typicalmes of prosperity. The Spanish city of Burgos canghlighted as an example where mass protests occuthe beginning of 2014 during the presentation of antious urban development plan for regenerating the ain the working district of Gamonal. People proagainst the substantial investment of 8 million Ewhat they saw as a mostly cosmetic renovation of thdespite a high level of unemployment (officially 26%ge indebtedness of the city council and cuts in healand education. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldpe-25775122 /20.2.2014/]43 Fernandez, 2103

Fig. 6. A disused site at the Rue Saint Blaise in Pariswas transformed into a community centre called‘Passage 56’ - ‘espace culturel écologique’ throughthe process of participationSl. 6. Neiskorištena i napuštena lokacijau Ulici Saint Blaise u Parizu prenamijenjena jeu centar nazvan Passage 56 - espace culturelécologique (‘ekološki kulturni prostor’)kroz proces participacije

Fig. 7. ‘MI:ZA makes coffee’ at the building siteof a dropped investment for the Maks culturalcentre in MariborSl. 7. MI:ZA makes coffee na gradilištu mariborskogakulturnog centra Maks (projekt koji se pokazaopropalom investicijom)

Fig. 8. ‘The shade house’ is a collaborative projectfor the Hulme Community Garden Centre,a non-profit organisation and the Live Project team,who designed and built it in 5 weeks with the help ofvolunteers. The project is the first stage of a largeredevelopment of the neighbouring car park, whichwill eventually double the Garden Centre’s site.Sl. 8. The shade house je zajednièki projekt za vrtnicentar Hulme Community Garden Centre neprofitneorganizacije i grupe Live Project, koje su èlanoviprojektirali i izgradili centar u roku od 5 tjedanauz pomoæ volontera. Projekt je prva etapa opsežneobnove susjednog parkirališta, koji æe na krajuudvostruèiti površinu vrtnoga centra.


9/14


sed and looked down upon as marginal andwithout any true value, primarily due to itseconomic marginality, and was therefore oftenlabelled with derogatory terms related to ur-ban squats or gardening and shantytowns.Nowadays, many such forms of communityand hence space organisation are slowly be-coming more legitimate, mostly due to their

role of enhancing social cohesion, for instancein projects such as ‘Yes we camp’ in Marseil-les44 (Fig. 1), the Holzmarkt Initiative in Berlin,Urban gardens by CAAP in Maribor, etc.

BOTTOM-UP A CTORS

BOTTOM-UP SUDIONICI

As argued in Handmade Urbanism, ”peopleacross the globe are engaging in improvingthe urban environments they live in. Commu-nity-based initiatives indicate the ability ofcitizens to present solutions to challengesposed by everyday life, and use creativity to

transform and multiply existing resources.”45 Bottom-up planning pays special attention tothe local communities as the main actors op-erating on a local level and fulfilling micro-agendas through direct action.46

In general, various actors can initiate and beinvolved in the process of bottom-up urbanactivation (Table II) - from groups of resi-dents, users of space, who join efforts in or-der to reach their common goal, to variousassociations, primarily from the field of cul-ture, as well as wider civic initiatives, NGOs,residential cooperatives, progressive city dis-trict boards, etc. Different expert groups of-

ten act as initiators, especially those who areprofessionally more directly involved withspace-related issues - e.g. various experi-mental architectural groups and associa-tions, spatial sociologists, traffic planners(Fig. 7)47 as well as scientists from differentacademic institutions. Among those oftentaking a proactive role are also schools of ar-chitecture with their workshops (Fig. 8) andpractical interventions into space (i.e. LifeProjects48 ). The latter form an importantgroup of future experts who will obtain a dif-ferent view on spatial planning with life expe-rience and participation. In general, informalparticipation is participation that enables thecontribution of groups that usually cannotformally take part in decision-making proc-esses (such as migrants) or are not yet ableto (such as children and teenagers; Fig. 10)and other interested groups or persons con-cerned (depending on the issue or problem).49 (Fig. 11)

Huybrechts argues that what is being calledparticipation is often nothing more than sim-ple interaction with participants. Participationis always about the relation between an indi-

vidual and a wider system: a project, an or-ganisation, or even the society as a whole.50 According to the literature, there are differentways of how an individual or a group of peo-ple can participate in a certain activity. Thiswas originally presented with Arnstrein’s Lad-der of participation, which imposes 8 differ-ent stages (rungs) of involvement- from moreformal ones, such as informing, consultationand placation, towards more active forms ofparticipation, such as delegated power and

44 The spatial intervention ‘Yes We Camp’ in Marseillesfor the needs of the 2013 European Capital of Culture acti-vated urban space for ‘camping’ on abandoned or underu-sed areas in the former industrial district. ”More than en-larging the accommodation offer, the Camping 2013 con-cept may be understood as a platform for different actorsto meet and innovate. The project is a collective work inwhich anyone, from neighbours to urban professionals,can make propositions to enrich the campsite or give ahand in its realisation. This approach could be identifiedas collaborative crowdsourcing, volunteers putting theirskills and ideas in common to make the project evolve.”[http://www.ifhp.org/ifhp-blog/yes-we-camp-marseille-2013#.U2jYjeaSwk9 /22.2.2014/]45 Rosa, Weiland, 2013: 1846 Rosa, Weiland, 201347 ‘MI:ZA’ - The association ‘Mariborsko interesno zdru-ženje arhitektov’ is an example of an urban developmentactor. They focus on soft activism with events called ‘Miza

makes coffee’, thus sparking off debates on developmentand interventions in the urban space on problematic ur-ban planning locations. At the same time, they operate asan activator in the discipline of architecture [http://mi-za.si /15.1.2014/]48 Live Projects is a pioneering educational initiative runby the University of Sheffield School of Architecture inGreat Britain, where students implement concrete projectsin space in real time and with real budgets as workshopformats that give them a hands-on experience in the localcommunity while at the same time the community can be-nefit from the ideas and actions of the students [http://www.liveprojects.org /15.2.2014/]49 Müller, Stotten, 2011: 750 Huybrechts, 2014

Table II. Various groups of bottom-up acand their fields of actTabl. II. Razlièite grupe bottom-up sudioi njihova podruèja djelovanja

Bottom up actors Connection Field of acti

Local groups - individuals,local residents,city districtboards

Location-bound

Identifying iand needs,establishingparticipatingimplementainvolvementthrough diffspatial inter

Interest groups - different fieldsof interest,associations,NGOs, citydistrict boards,users

Interest-bound Identifying iand needs,establishingparticipatinglobbying

Professionalgroups - architectureand urban designstudios, schools,art groups, etc.

Profession-bound

Professionaand supportidentifying iexpert desigWorkshops students, puchildren

Fig. 9. Left: Protests in the Gamonal distrin the Spanish city of Burgos when an amurban regeneration plan was announcedRight: Proposal for redeveloping the bouin the Gamonal district.Sl. 9. Lijevo: Prosvjedi u èetvrti Gamonalu španjolskome gradu Burgosu, gdje je naambiciozan plan urbane obnove. Desno: Pza obnovu bulevara u èetvrti Gamonal.

Fig. 10. Children’s active participation in of Burgos in the construction of an urbaSl. 10. Aktivno sudjelovanje djece u izgradurbanoga modela u gradu Burgosu


10/14


citizen control.51 The highest level is repre-sented by self-organised communities andrelated local initiatives included in conceptssuch as DIY Urbanism, Tactical Urbanism,Hands-on Urbanism, Lighter-Quicker-Cheap-er, Transition Towns, Sharing Cities.52 Partici-pation is actually the key element of the de-scribed approach since through involvement,cooperation and decision making of differentactors, be it residents, experts, etc., the socialfabric can be built simultaneously with theconstruction of the actual physical structure.

This point of view is very important and, asargued by Lefebvre, ”space is a product of so-cial (inter)action”.53 (Fig. 12)

Dialogue between different actors is alsoconsidered to be an important skill in theprocess of revival of disused urban space, asnoted by the cityBEE platform, which mainlyuses soft tools for reorganising and revivingabandoned urban areas. In an article aboutthe Eclectis project, the idea that listeningshould be our most important skill was pro-posed.54 With regard to the above-mentionedbottom-up actors, it is becoming increasinglyimportant to include a spectrum of different

user groups that is as wide as necessary orpossible to ensure efficient interventions.Cross-sectoral cooperation and interdiscipli-narity in bottom-up initiatives have also beenpointed out in a project called Actors of Ur-ban Change55 conducted by the Robert BoschFoundation (Berlin), which highlights the sig-nificance of participation between varioussectors - the municipal, private and cultural- with the aim of sustainable bottom-up revi-talisation of urban spaces.

Finally, Pal poses the question whether ple can free themselves from the tutelathe state and corporate power and becautonomous again as active citizens in hoholds, local communities, and regionsdustrial capitalism has answered these qtions in the negative. It has placed its trumen of wealth and power, the formally cated, and the experts. The contemporaerature on planning theory, however,come to recognise almost universally thascientific mind - or the planner-as-experplied to practical affairs, cannot be trustitself. ‘By serving corporate capital, caught up in the vortex of unlimited econexpansion. By serving the state, it workthe economy of destruction. Only by sepeople directly, when people are organto act collectively on their own behalf, wcontribute toward the project of an altetive development’.56 (Fig. 13)

CONCLUSIONZ AKLJUÈAK

The discussed approach of addressingsolving spatial issues was not a subject depth interest of architects and urban ners until recently, since it used to be deeunprofessional or even marginal, but ibecome increasingly relevant in timetightening belts, as we have illustratedthe presentation of various examples of spatial interventions and initiatives inrope. However, the economic crisis wathe only reason for the appearance of approach. In addition to the economic d

turn, the ever growing dynamic changour environment in recent decades lespatial planning and/or spatial developthat could not solve problems and acpeople’s needs anymore.

The approach presented in the paper anfined as the urban activator reveals manferences in comparison to traditional praes of urban development. The new appris almost diametrically opposite in all vant aspects when compared to the elished top-down model of planning. Idresses a wide range of actors, is mostlytom up initiated, but it also tries to con

across sectors. It is important in social tas it attempts to activate and connect peit embodies ecological principles, it promthe hands-on approach to active invment, it supports decision making by papants or users, it promotes flexible, crea

51 Arnstein, 1969

52 Peterlin, 2014

53 Elden, 2009: 186

Fig. 11. The aim of the ‘Cantiere Barca’ workshopwith Raumlaborberlin - a community projectin modern suburbs of Torino - was to establisha space of communication, activity and discussionbetween the localsSl. 11. Cilj radionice Cantiere Barca, zajednos Raumlaborberlin grupom, u projektu za modernapredgraða Torina bio je uspostaviti prostorkomunikacije, aktivnosti i diskusije izmeðu lokalnihstanovnika

Fig. 12. Living Courtyards Initiative: revivingthe courtyard and hallway with inhabitantsand students of architecture at the Gosposka Streetin Maribor

Sl. 12. Living Courtyards Initiative - oživljavanjedvorišta i unutarnjih prolaza u Gosposkoj uliciu Mariboru uz pomoæ stanovnika i studenataarhitekture


11/14


temporary solutions, it focuses more on theprocess than the outcome and could be ex-plained as a tool for rediscovering spatial andsocial potential. One of the differences thatalso have to be stressed is the new role of thearchitect or the urban planner, which wereinvolved in almost every case presented inthe paper. They are still regarded as impor-

tant advocates of space, but they transformedthemselves from the established position ofdesign-related authoritarian figures to theactivators, mediators or operators of theprocess of spatial intervention. The new roleof users/citizens is similarly important, asthey had to transform themselves from pas-sive observers into active co-creators. At thesame time, cities should change the focusfrom the search for the perfect, terminal planor solution to a rather open process as pre-sented by the logic of the urban activator.The strength of these small, bottom up initia-tives actually lies in the process, being theprocess of communication, as defined by

Habermas. After all, these small examplescould teach us how the city could be organ-ised or even self-organised in order to betterserve the needs of the people.

According to research, it can be concludedthat there are three principal goals of urbanactivation - a) firstly, the minimum spatialintervention can promote the introduction ofspatial conditions enabling the actual use ofpreviously underused areas by stakeholders;b) secondly, the involvement and participa-tion related to the spatial intervention (theco-creation of contents for the use of spaceas well as assistance in the physical redevel-

opment of the area) facilitate the conse-quently significant process of strengtheningsocial ties of local and wider communities ofinterest; c) thirdly, the minimum spatial inter-vention can instigate the process of seekingand providing long-term solutions (Fig. 14.)to specific social as well as spatial issues byraising awareness, alerting, and establishingdialogue and communication between differ-ent stakeholders - in this respect, the urbanactivator functions as the mediator in theprocess. In the future it should also receivewider recognition especially in countries likeCroatia and Slovenia.

By analysing and evaluating the presentedapproach, as well as having in mind the fu-ture perspective, several topics remained un-elaborated, such as the success of such initi-atives, the main challenges in implementingbottom-up participatory projects, and how

they can become legitimate in the frame ofrepresentative democracy. It would also beinteresting to propose the typologies of ur-ban activators as bottom-up practices, whichcould be discussed in depth according tovarious perspectives, such as who initiatesthem, the people involved (profiles, thenumber of participants), ownership of theproperty or land and their state of degrada-

tion, benefits to the community, impact onthe built environment, scope of resources,size of the area in question, organisation ofactivities and the type of the approach (meth-ods), and so on. Furthermore, based on theexamples shortly presented in the paper, ur-ban activators could also be structured interms of self-organised communities withoutthe support and participation of the publicsector and self-organised communities withthe support of the public sector.

In general, even nowadays, one would expecthigher responsibility, professionalism, trans-parent actions, better understanding andprovision of the public good, as well as better

communication from the side of local authori-ties with regard to space-related issues. Atthe same time, one would expect that peoplewould generally be more interested in thequality of their own living and working envi-ronment, more involved into active problemsolving, more responsible as citizens. There-fore, the presented grassroots initiatives andexamples of participatory cooperation set apositive impulse; however, the goal will beaccomplished when both sides will responsi-bly act together.

The purpose of the paper was not to providea detailed description of individual initia-tives, but primary to highlight the importance

of alternative approaches to creating betterrelations and conditions for the people livingin the cities and using their (city’s and per-sonal) unused potentials. Finally, it is impor-tant to understand the benefits of bottom-upparticipatory projects and link them to thecreation of opportunities and the activationof social life at a very low cost. Changing theperspective of interventions into space caneasily lead to open-ended possibilities.

[Translated by Mojca Trampuš, MA]

Fig. 13. ProstoRož: the aim was to activata different use of the French Revolution in Ljubljana, usually packed with parked cSl. 13. ProstoRož: Cilj je aktivirati razlièikorištenja Trga Francuske revolucije u Ljkoji je obièno zakrèen parkiranim automo

Fig. 14. ‘Open air library’ in Magdeburg waa two-step project where residents of a sdepressed neighborhood have organized to collect and share books in an library thave constructed, after a participatory pSl. 14. Open air library u Magdeburgu je pu dvije etape: stanovnici depresivnih èetvorganiziraju se kako bi prikupili i meðusorazmijenili knjige u knjižnici koju su sami i

nakon participativnog procesa

54 Vermeulen, 2014

55 http://www.bosch-stiftung.de/content/language2/html/47964.asp [15.9.2014]

56 Pal, 2008, orig.: Friedmann, 1987: 11


12/14


Bibliography

Literatura

1. Arnstein, S.R. (1969), A Ladder of Citizen Par-ticipation, JAIP, 35 (4): 216-224

2. Bishop, P.; Williams, L. (2012), The Temporarycity , Routledge, New York

3. Bordas, D.B. (2011), The flâneur’s surprise, Eu-ropean Prize for Urban Public Space, CCCB Cen-tre de Cultura Contemporania de Barcelona,Web [15.12.2013]

4. Carr, S.; Francis, M.; Rivlin, L.G.; Stone, A.M.(1992), Public Space, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge

5. Elden, S.; Brenner, N. [ed.] (2009), State, Spa-ce, World: Selected Essays by Henri Lefeb-vre, University of Minesotta Press, Minneapolis,London

6. Fernández, M. (2014), Urbanismo adaptativo:crisis, transición y temporalidad (Adaptive stra-tegies: the emerging bottom-up DIY approachas a tactical way to activate urban assets), Ciu-dades a escala humana, 14.1.2013, Web [20.2.2014]

7. Franck, K.; Howard, T.S. (2010), Design through Dialogue: A Guide for Architects and Clients,John Wiley & Sons

8. Franck, K.; Stevens, Q. (2007), Loose space:Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life, Routled-ge, New York

9. Friedman, J. (1987), Planning in the Public Do-main: From knowledge to action, Princeton Uni-versity Press, New York

10. Glass, J.J. (1979), Citizen participation in plan-ning: The relationship between objectives andtechniques, ”Journal of the American Planning

Association”, 45: 180-18911. Habermas, J. (1984 ), The theory of communica-

tive action. Vol. 1, Reason and the rationaliza-tion of society, Heineman, London

12. Harris, N. (2002), Collaborative Planning: FromTheoretical Foundations to Practice Forms, in:Allmendinger, P.; Tewdwr-Jones, M. [ed.]: Plan-ning Futures: New Directions for PlanningTheory, Routledge, London

13. Harvey, D. (2012), Rebel cities: from the right tothe city to the urban revolution, Verso, London

14. Haydn, F.; Temel, R. (2006), Temporary urbanspaces: Concepts for the use of city space, Birk-hauser, Basel

15. Huybrechts, L. (2014), Participation is Risky: Approaches to Joint Creative Processes, Anten-

nae Series, Valiz16. Jacobs, J. (1961), The Death and Life of Great

American Cities, Vintage Books, New York

17. Laurian, L. (2004), Public participation in envi-ronmental decision making, ”Journal of the Ame-rican Planning Association”, 70 (1): 53-65

18. Mohammadi, H. (2010), Citizen Participation inUrban Planning and Management: The case ofIran, Shiraz City, Saadi Community , Kassel Uni-versity Press GmbH, Kassel

19. Müller, E.; Stotten, R. (2011), Demochange,Public Participation Manual, Hochschule Luzern

20. New Charter of Athens (2003), Vision of the Con-nected City , European Council of Town PlannersConseil Européen des Urbanistes, Lisbon

21. Oswaldt, P.; Overmeyer, K.; Misselwitz, P. (2013), Urban catalyst, The power of temporaryuse, Dom Publishers, Berlin

22. Overmeyer, K. [ed.] (2007), Urban Pioneers:Temporary use and urban developments in Ber-lin, Jovis, Berlin

23. Pal, A. (2008), Planning from the bottom up:Democratic decentralisation in action, Sustaina-ble urban areas 20, TU Delft

24. Peterlin, M. [ed.] (2014), Prostori sodelovanja: skupnostne prakse v urejanju prostora, Inštitutza politike prostora (IPOP), Ljubljana

25. Ring, K. [ed.] (2013), Self-made city: Self-Initia-ted Urban Living and Architectural Interven-tions, Jovis, Berlin

26. Rosa, M.L.; Weiland, U.E. [ed.] (2013), Hand-made Urbanism: From community initiatives to paricipatory models, Jovis Velag, Berlin

27. Tugwell, R.G. (1939), The fourth power , in: Plan-ning and Civic Comment, Part II

28. Vermeulen, K. (2014) , Should listening be ourmost important skill? , WAAG, Amsterdam, 28.1.2014, Web 15.2.2014

29. Zotes, M. (2012), Appropriate, Subvert, Activa-te! Projection as Urban Activator , EME3, Barce-lona, 28.5.2012, Web 10.12.2013

Sources

Izvori

Internet Sources

Internetski izvori

1. http://www.liveprojects.org [20.1.2014]

2. http://www.bmwguggenheimlab.org/100ur-bantrends [25.3.2014]

3. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/europe-11m-empty-properties-enough-hou-se-homeless-continent-twice [23.2.2014]

4. http://www.publicspace.org/en/works/f042-ur-ban-activators-theater-podium-brug-grotekerkplein/prize:2010 [25.3.2014]

5. http://www.ciudadesaescalahumana.org/2013/01/articulo-urbanismo-adaptativo-crisis.html[27.3.2014]

6. http://www.urbancatalyst-studio.de/ [2.3.2014]

7. http://www.publicspace.org/en/text-library/eng/c003-la-sorpresa-del-flaneur [25.3.2014]

8. http://www.socialspaces.be/ [25.3.2014] 9. http://mi-za.si/ [25.3.2014]

10. http://waag.org/en/blog/should-listeninour-most-important-skill [16.3.2014]

11. http://www.stat.si/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=[16.3.2014]

12. http://www.eme3.org/2012/05/marcos-zappropriate-subvert-activate-projection-aban-activator [25.3.2014]

13. http://www.ifhp.org/ifhp-blog/yes-we-cmarseille-2013#.UtfVlmRDsk9 [2.3.2014]

14. http://www.unionstreetorchard.org.uk/ [2.5.2012]

15. http://waag.org/en/blog/should-listeninour-most-important-skill [15.2.2014]

16. http://tussen-ruimte.com/ [2.5.2014]

17. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-euro775122 / [15.5.2014]

18. http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/co/documents/Agenda21.pdf [18.10.2014]

19. http://www.bosch-stiftung.de/content/lage2/html/47964.asp [15.9.2014]

Illustration Sources

Izvori ilustracija

Fig. 1. upper: http://www.ifhp.org/ifhp-blogwe-camp-marseille-2013#.U4H-Y1iSw

lower: http://www.danielrech.com/fmin/bilder/YesWeCamp_web.jpg

Fig. 2. http://waag.org/en/blog/should-list-be-our-most-important-skill

Fig. 3. http://www.publicworksgroup.net2012/7

Fig. 4. http://www.publicspace.org/en/wo42-urban-activators-theater-podium-grotekerkplein/prize:2010

Fig. 5. http://www.unionstreetorchard.org.u

Fig. 6. http://www.publicspace.org/en/wf250-passage-56-espace-culturelecque/results:2010

Fig. 7. http://mi-za.si/wp/?p=177

Fig. 8. http://liveproject-hulme.tumblr.com/

Fig. 9. left: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/weurope-25775122

right: http://urbanismopatasarriba

spot.com/Fig. 10. http://ciudadcreaciudad.wordpress

2012/12/17/asc_01-burgos-crea-burg

Fig. 11. http://raumlabor.net/cantiere-barca

Fig. 12. Photo: author

Fig. 13. http://prostoroz.org/slo/index.php?jects/francoski-vrt

Fig. 14. http://www.publicspace.org/en/wo84-open-air-library

Table I. Müller, Stotten, 2011

Table II. author


13/14


Biography

Biografija

Sažetak

Summary

‘Urbani aktivator’ - participativni bottom-up alat za urbane promjenDefinicija i izabrani primjeri

U èlanku je predstavljen pristup odnosno alat zarješavanje prostornih problema degradiranih i na-puštenih urbanih podruèja. U gradovima, pogoto-vo u doba ekonomske krize, sve više dolazi doizražaja prevelik broj izgraðenih, ali neiskorištenihprostora - od praznih stanova, zatvorenih trgovinado zanemarenih dvorišta i zapuštenih industrijskihpodruèja, koji bi se mogli aktivirati, oživiti i ponov-no koristiti. Neiskorišteni prostor ne samo da pred-stavlja gospodarsku štetu nego on negativno utje-èe i na funkcioniranje širega urbanog tkiva, bacaloše svjetlo na neposrednu okolicu, a nenaseljenisu izloženi i vandalizmu, propadanju i sl. U tomekontekstu, u radu prikazujemo pregled aktualnihurbanih problema i uvodimo pojam urbani aktiva-tor koji je zapravo neka vrsta alata za aktivacijunapuštenih i neiskorištenih prostora. U tome sesmislu urbani aktivator shvaæa kao manja arhitek-

turna intervencija u okoliš koja nastoji - pomoæujednostavnih, ali kreativnih i katkad provokativnihrješenja, te s pretežito niskim sredstvima (low bud-

get) - potaknuti proces oživljavanja spomenutihzapuštenih i zanemarenih urbanih prostora. Pritomje važno da inicijativa za oživljavanje prostoraproizlazi iz domene, npr. potencijalnih korisnikaprostora, dakle da pobuda dolazi odozdo premagore, a ne obrnuto. Sudjelovanje je kljuèan ele-ment ovoga pristupa jer se kroz ukljuèenost, su-radnju i sudjelovanje korisnika, stanovnika itd.,pokraj toga prostora gradi i socijalno tkivo, tj. kakokaže Lefebre, prostor je proizvod društvene (inter)-akcije. Za takav je pristup stoga znaèajno da suarhitekturne intervencije u prostor uglavnom bezznaèajne gospodarske vrijednosti, ali imaju punoveæu društvenu vrijednost, posebice zbog procesasudjelovanja i integracije aktera na temelju vla-

stitog angažmana. Prostorna rješenja koja urbaniaktivator pokrene mogu biti privremena kao re-zultat potrebe za brzim promjenama, ali mogu ta-koðer omoguæiti i ponovno dugoroèno korištenjeprostora.Termin urbani aktivator nije opæepriznati pojam napodruèju arhitekture i urbanizma, ali se u struci po-[Prevela Mojca Trampuš, MA] K AJ

K AJA POGAÈAR, PhD, is lecturer at the Faculty of CivilEngineering, UM, and a practicing architect. Shestudied at the Faculty of Architecture at the TUGraz, where she also gained her PhD. She is aneditor and co-author of several book ( Visual im-

pressions / 2012, Maribor c(enter) / 2012, Renovat-ing City Interiors / 2013). Since 2010, she has beenrunning workshops for revival of disused court-yards of the city of Maribor in the framework of theLiving Courtyard Initiative.

Dr.sc. K AJA POGAÈAR, dipl.ing.arh., predavaèica naGraðevinskom fakultetu Sveuèilišta u Mariboru. Stu-dirala je na Arhitektonskom fakultetu Tehnološkogsveuèilišta u Grazu, gdje je stekla doktorat znanosti.Urednica je i koautorica knjiga pod naslovom Visualimpressions (2012.), Maribor c(enter) (2012.) i Reno-vating City Interiors (2013.). Od 2010. vodi radioniceza obnovu i oživljavanje neiskorištenih i zapuštenihdvorišta u Mariboru u sklopu tzv. Inicijative za živadvorišta (Living Courtyard Initiative).

javljuje u nekoliko razlièitih sinonima poput: urba-ni katalizator, inicijator, posrednik. Buduæi da jetema niskoproraèunskih, uglavnom neautorskih ièesto èak ‘amaterskih’ prostornih intervencija, do-nedavno se smatrala marginalnom pa nije bilapredmet intenzivnih istraživanja arhitekturne i ur-banistièke struke. Ipak, u posljednjih nekoliko go-dina pojedini tiskani objavljeni izvori - kao što su:Temporary City, Urban Catalyst itd., razne konfe-rencije i obrazovanja u vezi s tom tematikom (npr.MAO Debate: Nova dinamika javnih prostora, RBF:Actors of urban Change) te niz arhitekturno i socio-loški potkovanih inicijativa diljem Europe, kao štosu npr. Raumlaborberlin, Platforma 9.81, CityBee,Inciativa živih dvorišta itd. - dokazuju da tema,ipak, postaje vidljiva i važna.Koncept urbanog aktivatora realizira pristup nefor-malne participacije, stimulirane od dolje prema

gore, a u širem je kontekstu novi smjerokaz u pro-stornom planiranju, koji si je utirao put u dva vala,prvom tijekom 60-ih godina 20. stoljeæa, a drugomod 1990-ih do danas. Prvi je val obuhvaæao demo-kratizaciju i mobilizaciju društva i traženje alternati-va po naèelu top-down prostornog planiranja. Drugije val ustolièio princip održivog razvoja, a takoðer ibottom-up pristup koji temelji na Habermasovojteoriji „The theory of communicative action”, koja jepromijenila paradigmu prostornog planiranja.Akteri koji potièu proces urbane aktivacije mogu bitirazlièite lokalne grupe, primjerice, stanovnici nekeèetvrti ili potencijalni korisnici toga prostora; inte-resne grupe iz razlièitih interesnih podruèja, društa-va, ali i profesionalne grupe, npr. umjetnièke grupe;struènjaci koji se bave prostorom - od prostornihsociologa do arhitekata, urbanista. Sa stajalištauèinkovitosti intervencija, sve je važnije ukljuèivanje

što širega spektra razlièitih korisnièkih grupa. Glavniciljevi urbane aktivacije jesu: a) uspostava prostor-nih situacija pomoæu minimalne prostorne interven-cije, u kojima se nekorišteni prostori mogu poèetikoristiti od strane zainteresiranih strana; b) integra-cija, suradnja i umrežavanje aktera u vezi s prostor-nim interveniranjem, a time i jaèanje društvene veze;

c) korištenjem minimalne prostorne intekrenuti proces pronalaženja i oblikovroènih rješenja s obzirom na odreðenu-prostornu problematiku na naèin podizaupozoravanja i stvaranja dijaloga.U svijetu možemo u posljednjih nekoprimijetiti sve veæi broj urbanih interventemelje na funkcioniranju lokalne zajednniskoproraèunski i donekle aktivistièki. tome kontekstu spominje kao važan epvog pristupa, ali se i inaèe u mnogimgradovima javljaju nove prakse koje kljuèati intelektualni i kreativni potencijurbanih prostora. U radu smo prikazali nmjera takvih intervencija koji bi se mogliurbani aktivatori. Predstavljamo primjenja napuštenog i nezidanog prolaza upariških èetvrti, gdje je došlo do uzorn

torske suradnje meðu stanovnicima, loknizacijama, struènjacima iz podruèja planiranja, te opæine. Projekt podupire ini prostor ne nastane kao rezultat jednolikovane fizièke strukture, nego se krazvija kao socijalna, kulturna i politièkapri èemu se društveno tkivo susjedsprije, za vrijeme i nakon zakljuèka gradnza druženje. Dobar je primjer i ureðivanjepovršine u Marseilleu, koja je pretvorenza urbano kampiranje. Predstavljamo reljavanja dvorišta na podruèju stare jeMaribora, gdje se putem revitalizacije pojedinih manjih dvorišta pokušava pourbani razvoj. Ukratko, urbani aktivator jse u teškim ekonomskim i socijalnim uvjrješavati preureðenje prostora na jednostupaèniji naèin na temelju malih urban

cija i ukljuèivanja javnosti, s obzirom na izražavanja ideja i želja, kao i pomoæi uÈlanak potvrðuje tezu da urbani aktivatstati zajednièki alat za provjeru relevanmeljenosti prostornih intervencija, i to razdoblju nedostatka financijskih sredsttalizaciju podruèja nego i u doba prospe


14/14

Documents

Prostor casopis