PLACEMAKING: THE POLITICS OF TRANSFORMATION 1
Placemaking: The Politics of Transformation
Dunja Dunda
Abstract
This paper discusses the importance of public space being recognised and treated as political space, as a way of achieving transformative change often talked about within placemaking. One can argue this to be key in developing a sustainable urban environment, led and owned by local resident dwellers. Placemakers often do valuable work on engaging public space users and encouraging meaningful participation where the community becomes a partner and has power to make decisions for themselves about public spaces which affect them, and in so doing reaching the ‘citizen power’ step of Arnstein’s ladder (Arnstein, 1971). However, it is debatable whether such placemakers reach Arnstein’s ultimate goal of participation, that of ‘citizen control,’ as it can be argued they do not take up the responsibility of ‘conscientization,’ (Freire, 1972) making people aware of the oppressive structures, and in so doing do not fully devolve their power or builda sense of agency within the everyday public space users, in particular those most marginalised. This may be due to a lack of consideration of the wider framework and discourse of the current neoliberal socio-political climate through which individuals and organisations, working in public space where power-relations are constantly played out, fail to recognise the power of public space as a ‘space for representation’ (Mitchell, 2003) as well as a space where the right of citizenship can be most visibly seen and acted on. It can be argued that if power-relations are not considered when talking about public participation, the importance of which was stressed by Barnes et al. (2004), the wider impact of placemaking initiatives in terms of social inclusion and participation, may be limited; they often do not seem to ensure ‘access to the places of visibility’ (Brighenti, 2007, as stated in Saint-BlancatCancellieri, 2014)for those who do not already have this access, thus limiting their transformative impact.
Keywords:Placemaking; Socio-political context; Transformation; Power-relations; Visibility; Participation.
Placemaking: The Politics of Transformation
The transformative potential embodied in public space
Placemaking is a “quiet movement that inspires people to collectively reimagine and reinvent public spaces as the heart of every community” (Social Life, n.d.). It is considered a process through which a community is empowered and engaged in improving the public spaces that define their neighbourhood. As Schneekloth andShibley (1995) point out, “placemaking is about everything... how places and people change through daily acts of living... and how professionals can assist in the process” (p. 18).Porter and Barber (2006, as cited in Lombard, 2014) place placemaking in the context of regeneration discourses, pointing out that placemaking is used to highlight the other “non-commercial aspects of life” (p. 227). Karacor (2014) has explained the context of the placemaking movement by bringing out issues such as migration and population growth, through which social relations of urban dwellers have deteriorated, related to which there has been literature since the 1960s exploring the “individualization and isolation of people which leads to social problems” (p. 253).According to Project for Public Spacesplacemaking is an idea and a tool for improving a neighbourhood, a city or a region. It has the potential to be “one of the most transformative ideas of this century” (Project for Public Spaces, n. d.). As can be seen the advocates of placemaking are very clear in setting it up as an idea with significant potential for transformation. Through this paper an invitation is laid out for a further exploration of the frequently neglected “emotional and psychosocial dimension of the urban environment” (BayónSaraví, 2013, p. 17), therefore exploring the transformative aspects of this movement and seeking to understand the individual and collective transformations that happen in and through public spaces and the implications they have on the lived experienced of individuals. A need for such an endeavour is further supported by Burkner (2006, as cited in Lombard, 2014) who defines place-making as “part of an everyday social process of constructing and reconstructing space,” (p. 14) pointing out that it is both a communicative process and an individual mental one, to which Lombard (2014) concludes that there are therefore both individual and collective dimensions to placemaking.
Discourses
It can be argued that a lack of adequate attention is often being given to the design of public spaces, which can be said to be directly related to issues of inclusion and exclusion, and therefore power-relations.The ‘right to the city’ (Lefebvre, 1996) fundamentally challenges these existing power-relations and the production of urban space under the framework of capital-driven urbanisation (Busà, 2009). Moreover, across the mainstream mind-set the perceived importance of public space in everyday life of the citizen has declined with the increased privatisation and media revolution. The movement of privatisation is “silent and subtle, occurring with little public debate yet marked success” (Francis, 1988, p. 56). Private and corporate interests are actively involved in the making and managing of public spaces, often having a powerful impact on issues related to the design and the policy-management of public-spaces (Altman Zube, 1989). It can be argued that what the dominant discourse of public space also serves is to portray public space as if it were not part of a person’s everyday life, often by a lack of consideration or mention of it, therefore not acknowledging the political power embodied in public space and thus at the same time minimizing the strong relationship that public space has to participation. This discourse influences the everyday user of public space who often does not recognise the power of public space and his or her rights as a citizen to use and reclaim that space. This discourse also influences the work of placemakers who intervene in public space but who, it may be argued, seem not to take on board the political power of public space and the strength it has for increasing citizen participation, nor do they seem to talk much about reclaiming public space as something the citizen has a right to. This discourse operates on terms of exclusion of the everyday citizen who is framed as ‘powerless’ (Foucault et al., 2003).
Participation and citizenship in public space
Participation discoursehas moved on from “beneficiary participation to wider questions of citizenship, rights and governance” (Gaventa, 2002,as cited in Cornwall, 2003, p. 1325). As a basic tenet of democracy, citizenship is not only exercised through the right of vote but also through everyday participation, through local-level community actions of an everyday nature; essentially, through everyday local spatial practices which create an open space of public discourse (Staeheli Cope 1994b, as cited in Knigge, 2006). Therefore, the right of citizenship can be most visibly seen and acted on in public space and on an everyday basis, which is the arena in which placemakers work through everyday public space initiatives. There is a reflective relationship between participation and democracy; the notion of democracy entails the notion of a democratic citizenship in which agents actively participate in the democratic process (Torres, 2014). It is of importance to note that concepts of ‘citizenship’ and ‘public space’ share a history of exclusion; US history reminds us that at one point only those who had the rights of a citizen were allowed to participate in the public sphere, so for instance men who were not white, as well as women, were not allowed (Knigge, 2006).In particular, citizenship as a lived experience cannot be divorced from its context, including its spatial context (Desforges et. al, 2005). Moreover, as Rodman (1992) states “places are not inert containers. They are politicized, culturally relative, historically specific, local and multiple constructions” (p. 641).As Mitchell (2003) stresses, the power of public space is in it being a ‘space for representation.’ The importance of public space, and therefore exploring the work that placemakers do in and through public space, is that it is a place where individuals and groups represent their individual needs and desires, a place where they get recognised, or not, as ‘legitimate political actors’ (Knigge, 2006).
There is vast transformative potential embodied within public spaces. As public spaces are so embedded in our everyday lives, when they are intervened in through placemaking transformation of one type or another will occur. As Lombard (2014) points out we must consider the power of public space because of this. As Sutton and Kemp (2011) mention, urban places should be acknowledged as sites of oppression, as well as for serving as the “context of transformation and possibility” (p. 4). Lombard (2014) emphasises that we must focus on the “complexities of power in place” (p. 13). Due to such power that public spaces hold in the political sense, it can be claimed that the placemaking movement through its place-based initiatives has the potential to challenge dominant power structures, empower the marginalised low-income urban communities and create structural change (Sutton & Kemp, 2011), as well as build equitable societies through transforming social inequalities. Place-making is capable of uncovering “the complexity of social (and hence power) relations contained within the processes which affect urban informal settlements as places” (Lombard, 2014, p. 17). It cannot achieve transformative change unless it recognises power-relations present in spaces. Embodied in its aim of inspiring people and collectively reinventing public spaces is a significant potential for transforming on a collective level “traditional power relations between architects, urban planners, and low-income communities of color” (Sutton & Kemp, 2011, p. 241), and on an individual level transforming the everyday realities of marginalised individuals. To what extent placemaking is achieving this vast potential seems debatable and is a question to keep posing and addressing.
Participation, visibility and power-relations as intertwined in public space
Public spaces contribute greatly to the increased participation of a diverse range of individuals and groups in society (Manuel, 2013).In our ‘desired city,’ space should be produced and re-produced through an active participation of all its citizens (Harvey, 2008, as cited in Busà, 2009).The connection between visibility and urban space, urban space being seen as a material and symbolic place of visibility, has been well established (Saint-BlancatCancellieri, 2014). An important issue to consider is that being out in public space is not in itself enough to ensure visibility; indeed it is the “access to the places of visibility” that is of importance as a critical political question (Brighenti, 2007, p. 329, as stated in Saint-BlancatCancellieri, 2014). Public spaces obtain meaning through a common struggle, what Mitchell (2003) talks about when saying ‘taking a place and ‘making it public.’ Furthermore, Goffman relates visibility to empowerment; visibility being important to those in society who may be invisible and may need a voice and a space for expressing that voice (Goffman, 1971, as cited in Saint-BlancatCancellieri, 2014). Additionally, the connection of social interactions and asymmetries of power, with visibility, has been established (Brighenti, 2007,as stated in Saint-BlancatCancellieri, 2014). As Barnes et al. (2004) confirms, when considering public participation and whether it challenges or reinforces social exclusions we must also consider the power relationships in place. Gaventa (2004, as cited inBarnes et al., 2004) concludes that when power relations are more or less equal is when the most empowering, and effective, participation happens. Therefore, when exploring the work of placemakers one must keep power-relations at play in mind.
Placemaking and participation
As part of the placemaking movement there has been truly impressive and wide-ranging, cross-disciplinary and global work that has been done on engaging users of public spaces, serving as great examples of strong participatory practice. It can be said that lots of these initiatives go above mere attempts of tokenism of informing, consultation and placation on Arnstein’s ‘ladder of participation,’ but instead encourage participation which is meaningful and where the community becomes a partner and has greater power to make decisions for themselves about the public spaces that affect them, and therefore reaching the ‘citizen power’ step of the ladder. Whether in its participatory approaches the different placemaking initiatives reach Arnstein’s ultimate goal of participation, that of ‘citizen control’ (Arnstein, 1971), is debatable.
Placemakers use participatory practice to help make local people and their needs and desires more visible in public space. The importance of working with the mind-set that community knows best is well talked about and a lot of effort is put into engaging users of public spaces in various placemaking initiatives. However, it is debatable to what extentplacemakersactively seek out to provide access to public places and access to visibility for a diverse group of people, of different ages, ethnicities and cultures. It can be said that often the result of placemaking is a lack of ensuring “access to the places of visibility” (Brighenti, 2007, p. 329, as stated in Saint-BlancatCancellieri, 2014) for those who do not already have this access. It is debatable whether the marginalised pockets of the population, those who need a space for expressing their voice (Goffman, 1971, as cited in Saint-BlancatCancellieri, 2014), are reached out to.This could be due to the fact that the issue of power-relations is not touched upon much in placemaking. Even though there is a lack of mention of the term ‘power-relations’ as part of placemakers’ work, some projects have indeed been implemented which positively addressed the power-relations at play, for instance in poor neighbourhoods in New York City (Neckerman et al., 2009) and on marginalisation and gender issues regarding the use of spaces (Project for Public Spaces, 1981). However, there is not much evidence in placemakers’ discourse to show that they have an interest in directly engaging in exploring power-relations, as for instance terminology such as ‘gender’ or ‘marginalisation’ is rarely brought up. As there is lack of consideration of power-relations when considering public participation, the importance of which was stressed by Barnes et al. (2004), the placemakers’ wider impact in terms of social inclusion and participation may be limited. Moreover, whilst theplacemaking movement consists of a participatory approach at its core it may very likely still be mostly initiated and led by professionals. As is pointed out by Lombard (2014) the movement’s focus is on “professionals engaging with communities, a perspective which precludes prioritising the perspective of communities themselves” (p. 15). In this way power is not being devolved or a sense of agency built among the everyday public space users, therefore not enabling ‘citizen control’ (Arnstein, 1971) step of Arnstein’s ladder. Therefore, one could argue that many placemaking initiatives are not fully doing what they could be doing to ensure equal power-relations, which is where the most empowering and effective participation happens (Gaventa, 2004, as cited inBarnes et al., 2004).
Placemaking and citizenship in public space
Even though participation discourse has moved on from so called “beneficiary participation to wider questions of citizenship, rights and governance” (Gaventa, 2002, as cited in Cornwall, 2003, p. 1325), and everyday citizenship cannot be considered as separate from its spatial context (Desforges et al., 2005), placemakers, as individuals and organisations working within this ‘spatial context,’ may not have actually moved on in the same direction. This can be presumed as the relationship and importance of public space to democracy and greater participation is often not acknowledged, as is demonstrated through lack of focus on power-relations(e.g. lack of talk about placemaking initiatives in terms of ‘rights’, ‘citizenship’, ‘marginalisation’ or ‘control’). In this lack of explicit regard of power-relations at play in public space, and a lack of regard for the political, placemakers do not seem to recognise the power of public space as a ‘space for representation’ (Mitchell, 2003), nor as a space where the right of citizenship can be most visibly seen and acted on.As has beenpointed out, if we talk about placemaking we need to talk openly and transparently about its critiques too, that it’s elitist, that it doesn’t provide social equity, and that it causes gentrification(Karacor, 2014). This points to a possible contradiction in many placemakers’ approaches as whilst they may embrace the placemaking approach which puts people at the heart of what makes public spaces public, it can be argued that still often there is no connection made with wider policy making, including regeneration, and as Holland et al. (2007) point out, “while regeneration can provide pristine public spaces, it is the people that make the places” (p. xii.). Placemakers could contribute tremendously to this discourse, affecting positive change on the ground and ensuring people affected by the regeneration policies are participating in the regeneration initiatives.
In their participatory work placemakers often employ aspects of ‘critical consciousness’ (Freire, 1972) as they are spreading the message that we all need to start to “think of streets as public spaces” (Project for Public Spaces, 2014, as quoted in UN-HABITAT, 2013). However, the limitation in many placemakers’ approaches is that whilst they employ aspects of ‘critical consciousness,’ it can be argued that in practice they do not put public space in the context of the current neoliberal socio-political climate, exploring this type of climate’s influences or constraints, as for instance Reclaim the Streets (RTS) international movement does by acknowledging the ‘politicization of urban space’ and situating its critique of car culture within the larger framework of global capitalism. As pointed out, “The struggle for car-free space must not be separated from the struggle against global capitalism for in truth the former is encapsulated in the latter” (Reclaim the Streets, n.d.). The practice of ‘reclaiming’ must be seen and understood as liberating space from the different “social, political and economic forms of domination,” and reconstituting that space in a new image (Harvey, 1989, as cited in Smith, 2004, p. 182). Therefore, contrary to RTS, lots of placemakers keep a neutral political stance, and it could be argued that in so doing they keep the status quo as they essentially accept to work within the power structures. Consequentially, the impact of placemakers’ work may be said to be limited in terms of wider ‘transformative change’(Nelson Prilleltensky, 2005).
For the placemaking movement, in addition to talking about reimagining, reinventing and improving public spaces, it may be beneficial to make clear why there may be a need or interest in doing so and it may be beneficial to address the context in which it sets out to work. In order to achieve a significant transformative impact, acknowledging and clearly identifying the political influences that are embodied within public space is crucial. Otherwise, the placemaking movement is at a danger of perpetuating the status quo and reproducing marginalisation in and through public spaces, as Lombard (2014) points out, it’s important to consider that “discourses reproduce marginalisation through ignoring or stereotyping places” (p. 14). One can say that if the placemaking movement did indeed acknowledge this inherent socio-political aspect embodied in public spaces and in its work that it could in fact serve as a catalyst for the movement losing more and more of its perceived legitimacy, which McAdam and Kloos (2014) list as one of the three things needed for transformation to occur, and therefore would be able to achieve greater transformation. The placemaking movement supports people improving their public spaces but in its discourse it does not talk about people’s rights to those public spaces and to having them as they wish to have them. If the movement were to take on board the political aspect of public spaces and mobilised people’s emotions in response to for instance the privatisation discourse or for instance by using the discourse of individual rights and the ‘right to the city,’ one could say it would have a stronger transformative impact as people may, once educated on their rights, start to re-consider whether they indeed want to accept existing arrangements.