Abstract
This chapter addresses how bottom-up urbanism relates to urban governance in Europe. The recent proliferation of bottom-up urban initiatives contrasts with the conventional system of top-down planning. This chapter includes eight examples of bottom-up initiatives from Stockholm, Sweden, and Istanbul, Turkey. Three conclusions can be drawn: first, the discrepancy between organizational structures, a hierarchical governmental structure, and the dominance of politics create missing links in the relationship between municipalities and citizen-led urban initiatives; second, new governance arrangements alone are not enough to create opportunities for citizens to partake in participatory methods and to be involved in decision-making processes; third, the political perspective of social innovation reformulates mutual engagement by introducing political liaisons, such as municipal guides or neighborhood councils.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Furthermore, all of the initiatives emerged out of an explicit urge to create a place outside government structures to evade the perceived pressing neoliberal agenda in planning, which increases tension. For example, the municipal inability to provide a community skatepark prompted the Brotherhood Plaza project, and the Cyklopen project aimed to provide a cultural center that is an alternative to traditional commoditized public spaces.
- 2.
Both the political councilor and municipal official held seats on the TAK board.
References
Akpınar, I. (2014). Legal and institutional context of urban planning and urban renewal in Turkey: Thinking about Istanbul. In G. Erkut & R. Shirazi (Eds.), Dimensions of urban re-development—The case of Beyoğlu, Istanbul (Ch. 2.2). Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.
Andersson, O. (2017). Segregationen är inbyggd och avsiktlig. DN [Online]. Available at: http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/ola-andersson-segregationen-ar-inbyggd-och-avsiktlig/?forceScript=1&variantType=large. Accessed June 27, 2017.
Blomgren Bingham, L., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558.
Brenner, N. (2015, April 1). Is “tactical urbanism” an alternative to neoliberal urbanism? MoMa [Online]. Available at: http://post.at.moma.org/content_items/587-is-tactical-urbanism-an-alternative-to-neoliberal-urbanism. Accessed May 13, 2015.
Chase, J., Crawford, M., & Kaliski, J. (2008). Everyday urbanism. New York: The Monacelli Press.
Cuthbert, A. (2006). The form of cities: Political economy and urban design. Oxford: Blackwell.
Deslandes, A. (2013). Exemplary amateurism—Thoughts on DIY urbanism. Cultural Studies Review, 19(1), 216–227.
Engström, C. J., & Cars, G. (2013). Planning in a new reality—New conditions, demands and discourses. In M. J. Lundström, C. Frederiksson, & J. Witzell (Eds.), Planning and sustainable development in Sweden (Ch. 1). Stockholm: Föreningen för Samhällsplanering.
Erkut, G., & Shirazi, R. (2014). Introduction. In G. Erkut & R. Shirazi (Eds.), Dimensions of urban re-development—The case of Beyoğlu, Istanbul (Ch. 1). Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.
Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 451–478.
Finn, D. (2014). DIY urbanism: Implications for cities. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 7(4), 381–398.
Fraker, H. (2007). Where is the urban design discourse? [To rally discussion]. Places, 19(3).
Gerometta, J., Haüssermann, H., & Longo, G. (2005). Social innovation and civil society in urban governance—Strategies for an inclusive city. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2007–2021.
Halbur, T. (2010, April 26). Andres Duany wants to reform the public process. Planetizen [Online]. Available at: https://www.planetizen.com/node/43935. Accessed February 28, 2017.
Hou, J. (2010). (Not) your everyday public space. In Insurgent public space: Guerilla urbanism and the remaking of contemporary cities (pp. 1–16). New York: Routledge.
Hurley, J. (2013). The public process and new urbanism. In E. Talen & Center for the New Urbanism (Eds.), Charter of the new urbanism (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Iveson, K. (2013). Cities within the city: Do-it-yourself urbanism and the right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), 941–956.
Kearns, A., & Paddison, R. (2000). New challenges for urban governance. Urban Studies, 37(5–6), 845–850.
Kelbaugh, D. (2008a). Three urbanisms: New, everyday, and post. In: T. Haas (Ed.), New urbanism and beyond: Designing cities for the future. New York: Rizzoli.
Kelbaugh, D. (2008b). Introduction. Further thoughts on the three urbanisms. In D. Kelbaugh & K. K. McCullough (Eds.), Writing urbanism. New York: Routledge.
Krieger, A. (2006). Territories of urban design. In J. Rowland & M. Malcolm (Eds.), Urban design futures. London: Routledge.
Legeby, A. (2010). From housing segregation to integration in public space: A space syntax approach applied on the city of Södertälje. The Journal of Space Syntax, 1(1), 92–207.
Lydon, M., & Garcia, A. (2015). Short-term action for long-term change. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Gonzlezález, S., & Swyngedouw, E. (2007). Introduction: Social innovation and governance in European cities—Urban development between path dependency and radical innovation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(3), 195–209.
Nicolò, F. (2012). Can neighbourhoods save the city? Community development and social innovation, by Frank Moulaert. Urban Research & Practice, 5(2), 293–295 [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2012.691630 Accessed June 14, 2015.
Onyango, J., & Noguchi, M. (2009). Changing attitudes of community through the design charrette process. The International Journal of Neighborhood Renewal, 1(3), 19–30.
Rodriguez, M. A., & Azenha, A. L. (2014). Understanding the urban context. In G. Erkut & R. Shirazi (Eds.), Dimensions of urban re-development—The case of Beyoğlu, Istanbul (Ch.3.). Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.
Rucker, D. (2011, December 2). Why Duany is wrong about the importance of public participation. New Geography [Online]. Available at: http://www.newgeography.com/content/002046-why-duany-wrong-about-importance-public-participation. Accessed February 28, 2017.
SCB. (2016, December). Key figures for Sweden [Online]. Available at: http://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/#_Keyfigures. Accessed February 28, 2017.
Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006.
Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism & American planning: The conflict of cultures. New York: Routledge.
Talen, E. (2014, September, 2). Do-it-yourself urbanism: A history. Journal of Planning History, 1–14 [Online]. Available at: http://jph.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/01/1538513214549325.abstract#corresp-1. Accessed March 24, 2015.
Taylor, M. (2007). Community participation in the real world: Opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces. Urban Studies, 44(2), 297–317.
UN-Habitat. (2013). State of the world’s cities 2012/2013 [Internet]. New York: Routledge. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/745habitat.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2015.
United Nations. (2016). The world cities in 2016—Data booklet [Internet]. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanization/the_worlds_cities_in_2016_data_booklet.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2017.
Wänström, J. (2013). Communicative planning processes—Involving the citizens. In M. J. Lundström, C. Frederiksson, & J. Witzell (Eds.), Planning and sustainable development in Sweden (Ch.13). Stockholm: Föreningen för Samhällsplanering.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. London: Sage.
Zardini, M. (2008). A new urban takeover. In G. Borasi & M. Zardini (Eds.), Actions: What you can do with the city. Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture (co-published by SUN).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Danenberg, R., Haas, T. (2019). New Trends in Bottom-Up Urbanism and Governance—Reformulating Ways for Mutual Engagement Between Municipalities and Citizen-Led Urban Initiatives. In: Arefi, M., Kickert, C. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Bottom-Up Urbanism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90131-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90131-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90130-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90131-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)