Speaker
Description
The role of public space continues to be significant amidst substantial transformations in political systems across various European cities (Madanipour & Knierbein, 2004; Svirsic, Zlatar, and Niksic, 2021). In current discussions and in response to that, even the term 'public space' has increasingly evolved into 'common space' (Castro & Martí, 2016; Hardt & Negri, 2011; Foster & Iaione, 2016; Heyden, 2017; Stavrides, 2016, 2017). There is a notable tension between the capitalist model, which prioritises profit, and the emancipatory efforts held by the agency among organised inhabitants. Concerning public spaces, this theme is a discussion point in Europe and Latin America as both continents navigate various political models. In Chile, the transformation from a state-centred model to a neoliberal approach has had obvious impacts (Rodriguez & Rodriguez, 2009). As a result, inequalities have become particularly visible in peripheral urbanisations, and, at the same time, that is where emancipatory strategies have become more evident, too. These are territories where memories of collaboration with the state in the 1960s evolved, and a strong self-organisation emerged, confronting the imposition of the subsidiary model during the dictatorship. Today, the original way of producing community life and common space in squares, streets, courts and social centres in these urbanisations has become more complex. While the founding generations built their lives around solidarity networks and economies of exchange, newer generations face the dilemma of either continuing to foster this original lifestyle or adopting more individualistic and consumption-oriented contemporary lifestyles. Our research highlights the process of producing common spaces through the agency of residents and their interaction with urban decision-makers. The findings focus on processes that have enhanced inclusion and aim to identify the particular self-construction practices and the resulting spaces to drive future change. Understanding this 'reservoir of the commons' also allows for a re-examination of the role of urban planning and its potential to support the aspirations of the city and society that communities represent. Learning from these experiences allows us to discover the keys to moving up the ladder of more active participation (Arnstein, 1969; Hordijk et al., 2015). We seek to understand the visions of the city and society that underpin everyday actions by residents concerning the use and appropriation of squares, streets, social venues, and sports spaces. Aligning with other authors (Hou, 2010; Makakavhule in Landman & Mady, 2022; Dodd, 2020), our research initially aims to adopt the perspective of residents' agency. We examine what motivates inhabitants to influence the spaces of the "commons," the specific spaces where this agency is visible, and the current crises it encounters.
On a second level, we aim to identify how urban planning actors recognise the significance of local knowledge and residents' creative abilities to connect with their sense of agency in constructing common space, thereby contributing to an ongoing debate about planning transformation (Hordijk et al., 2015; Hanzl, 2007; Cruickshank & Coupe, 2013). This socio-spatial study of a dozen common spaces within a community participating in an 'Operation Sitio' settlement in Santiago has been analysed by field observation and qualitative methods longitudinally over five years and transversally concerning its inhabitants, leaders, and planners. The significance of this case lies in its potential for replication, as there are over 460 neighbourhoods of this nature, covering 52 km² in Santiago and a total of 91 km² in Chile.
References
Cruickshank, L. & Coupe, G. & Hennessy, D. 2016. Co-Design: Fundamental Issues and Guidelines for Designers: Beyond the Castle Case Study. Swedish Design Research Journal. 9. 46.
Dodd, M. (2020). Spatial Practices: Modes of Action and Engagement with the City. Routledge.
Hardt, M. & Negri, A. 2011. Commonwealth. El proyecto de una revolución de lo común. España: Akal Ediciones.
Heyden, Mathias (Ed.) 2017. Gemeingut Stadt. Colección: Berliner Hefte zur Geschichte der Gegenwart der Stadt, nr. 4. Berlin.
Hordijk M., Sutherland, M. & Scott D. 2015. “Participatory instruments and practices in urban governance.” In: Gupta, J., Pfeffer, K., Verrest, H. & Ros-Tonen, M. (eds.) Geographies of Urban Governance, 26(1), pp. 130–146.
Hou, J. 2010 Insurgent Public Space. London: Routlegde.
Madanipour, A. & Knierbein, S. 2014. Politics of public space in European cities. Revista Gestion y Ambiente 17, 2014/1.
Rodriguez, A. & Rodriguez, P. 2009. Santiago, una ciudad neoliberal. Santiago de Chile, SUR Corporación de Estudios Sociales y Educación.
Stavrides, Stavros 2016. Common Space. The City as Commons. London: Zed Books.
Svirsic, A. & Zlatar, J. & Nikšič, M. 2021. Public participation in post-communist cities between stagnation and progress: The examples of Zagreb and Ljubljana. Urbani izziv. 32. 75-84.
| Keywords | common space, participation process, self-organization, peripheral urbanizations, Santiago Chile, |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
