Participation
in the production of space /
in the production of Eigenart Social cohesion
local identification/identity Diversity, connectivity
and innovativeness
substantive procedural
economic Creation of urban quality of life
Principles of
Eigenart
Inclusion rights
Autonomy Difference
Figure 3.5-1
Inclusion rights and principles of Eigenart as prerequisites of urban quality of life, identity and diversity.
Source: WBGU
145 WBGU’s approach of a people-oriented urban
trans-formation towards sustainability, the most interesting aspects are those that can evolve through the active inclusion and participation of people in their city and are seen as important for sustainable development in cities (Figure 3.5-1). Existing indicator systems that come close to such an understanding can be found pri-marily in research on urban quality of life (Box 3.5-2).
To make it possible to study the realization of Eigenart as a normative dimension in a city, the WBGU proposes three observation priorities and formulates possible questions and indicators for leading the research. The first priority comprises the provision of spatial-mate-rial prerequisites for urban quality of life and, related to this, the active appropriation of space (Section 3.5.3.1).
The second priority focuses on the development and preservation of local identity, local identification and social cohesion, and thus on the individual and collec-tive identity and identification processes in connec-tion with the respective living environments (Secconnec-tion 3.5.3.2). The third priority concentrates on innova-tiveness, creativity and connectivity and studies the continuous changing and evolution of diversity and novelty in urban areas (Section 3.5.3.3).
3.5.3.1
Provision of spatial-material prerequisites for urban quality of life
When it comes to the provision of spatial-material pre-requisites for urban quality of life, the main question is how urban space can be designed in such a way that people have an opportunity to create and feel quality of life for themselves. As regards the key prerequisites for urban quality of life (Section 2.4.1), it is important to distinguish between universal conditions, i. e. spatial or structural features which are relevant almost
every-where in the world, and culturally and locally spe-cific prerequisites. A universally valid, important pre-requisite is that cities must have facilities for recrea-tion, social interaction and social life – for example, urban public space, green areas and parks, semi-public facilities such as churches and mosques (van den Berg et al., 2013; Rogers et al., 2011). These spaces must be accessible and reachable (relevant for inclusion), but also have certain physical characteristics. Protag-onists of people-oriented urban planning like Jan Gehl emphasize in this context the spatial enabling of vital-ity and the ‘human scale’ as a benchmark for urban design (Gehl, 2010; Box 2.4-3). For example, urban spaces should be an invitation to linger and to inter-act (e. g. they should not be too big and should offer seating groups); they should also be multi-functional, i. e. in addition to shopping opportunities inner cities should encourage conversations, games or recreation.
Buildings should not be so high that users feel out of touch with the city and not part of it; the speed of traf-fic on the roads should be adapted to that of pedestri-ans and cyclists.
Research also shows that green spaces have a key role to play as recreation areas (Section 2.4.1.1). It is also important to provide a minimum amount of free space which people can arrange as they wish, as a place to withdraw to, or which they can adapt to their everyday needs (Zurawski, 2014). These aspects are conducive to creative autonomy and thus to self-effi-cacy in the production of quality of life. The interac-tion between spatial settings and infrastructures with human action focused on here also reveals interfaces and synergies for sustaining the natural life-support systems. For example, infrastructures for promoting sustainable mobility (public transport, attractive cycle paths and footpaths) can also promote social interac-Box 3.5-2
Indicators of urban quality of life and the connection to the normative dimension Eigenart
A comparison of different indicator systems for quality of life at the national and specifically urban level – e. g. the OECD's Better Life Index, the Gross National Happiness Index, the City Prosperity Index, or the Sustainable City Index – shows that the dimensions of the natural life-support systems and inclusion are to be found in almost all approaches. Other indicators (can) only correspond or relate implicitly to the dimension of Eigenart. In the UN-Habitat’s City Prosperity Index (2013c), for example, social capital is measured as a sub-index of quality of life. At the national level, aspects that could measure Eigenart play a role primarily in the subjec-tive approach of Gross National Happiness (Ura et al., 2012), where cultural inclusion, cultural etiquette and the sense of
community are documented using subjective assessments.
The OECD’s Better Life Index (2011a, 2013a, 2015d) looks into the quality of social relations, and the Social Progress Index (Porter and Stern, 2014) examines freedom of assem-bly and speech, the freedom of religion and life decisions, the equality of minorities, and tolerance towards minorities, which might indicate the realization of the recognition of
‘ difference’.
One striking aspect in the comparison of national and spe-cifically urban indicators is that subjective well-being, local identification and local identity, social cohesion and the qual-ity of the living environment hardly seem to play any role at all. Similarly, cultural diversity and innovativeness in urban areas are rarely documented. The WBGU therefore proposes several categories for observing Eigenart and formulates possible indicators (Section 3.5.4; Table 3.5-2) in order to study the realization of Eigenart as a normative dimension.
146
tions and lower barriers to participation in mobility. At the interface with the dimension of inclusion, the ques-tion also arises as to how the spatial factors of quality of life are distributed and accessible for the different population groups.
3.5.3.2
Social cohesion, local identity and local identification
The quality of life and social cohesion of a (urban) society are closely related. The principles ‘recogni-tion of creative autonomy’ and ‘recogni‘recogni-tion of differ-ence’ (Section 3.5.2) emphasize the singularity of peo-ple and accentuate the quality of the city as an individ-ual development space – a space that offers anonymity and the possibility of submerging in the mass of peo-ple. At the same time, however, people need a sense of belonging; their identity only develops through social interactions and relations (Fuhrer, 2008). The indi-vidual creation of quality of life succeeds particularly well in a social environment in which social cohesion – i. e. inclusion, a sense of belonging and social trust – are encouraged and there are strong social ties and networks ( Section 2.4). Thus social cohesion also pro-motes social resilience in a society. Social cohesion is often less pronounced in cities (Lev-Wiesel, 2006; Put-nam, 2007; Cassiers and Kestelot, 2012). This makes it all the more important to make social cohesion phys-ically and spatially possible, among other things via spaces for social interaction and collective appropria-tion processes. The large housing estate of Pruitt Igoe in St. Louis, Missouri, was an example of the spa-tial prevention of social cohesion. Erected in 1954 as a ‘future-oriented project’ of social housing, it had to be demolished just under twenty years later because of high levels of vacancy, vandalism and crime (Bell et al., 1996; Flade, 2015). One of the causes that were discussed was that, as a result of the densely built-up area and the narrow corridors, there had been no space for social contacts or activities between the residents.
The residents remained strangers and there was dis-trust and uncertainty, partly because the corridors and elevators encouraged thefts and assaults rather than positive social interactions. This does not mean that densely built, large housing estates prevent social cohesion as a general rule, but the example does show how well-meaning construction projects can disregard the needs and cultural habits of encounter and social interaction between their target groups, and thus fail to achieve their objectives.
Local identification and local identity emphasize particularly the relationship between people and their spatial environment, and thus the memories, ideas, feelings and sense of responsibility that people
con-nect with their living environments (Section 2.4.1.2).
To achieve this, it must be possible for spatial environ-ments to be appropriated; people must be able to realize their spatial identity, for example by being able to move around safely within their environment and spend time in their favourite places. It is also important that peo-ple are involved in changes in their living environ-ments, that their needs are taken into account (Fuhrer, 2008), and that they have the resources and freedom to use spaces. The feeling of spatial and social belong-ing can then also enhance people’s willbelong-ingness for local involvement. The concept of ‘participatory budgeting’, for example, was developed on the basis of projects in which the residents of neglected districts were given an opportunity to administer and use abandoned buildings in their neighbourhood (Leavitt and Saegert, 1990). As one study shows, the local identity of the people tak-ing part in these projects was an important resource for their willingness to work towards improving the living environment and was simultaneously strengthened by the possibility of self-administration.
Although social processes are key for the develop-ment of local identity, one facet of belonging to a place can also be connected with certain outstanding features of the built environment (significant religious locations or landmarks) or the ‘image’ of a city (Flade, 2015).
3.5.3.3
Innovativeness, creativity and connectivity
In the transition to a sustainable urban development, it is important to recognize and change structures and practices that do not meet the requirements of secur-ing the natural life-support systems and inclusion.
Creativity and innovativeness, together with openness and the ability to reflect, play an important role for re-newable urban societies and create a fertile medium for the transformation.
In the WBGU’s view, the principles of creative autonomy and cultural difference aptly describe the basic essentials needed for an innovative urban society.
They cover visible results such as commercially exploit-able forms of innovativeness, as well as other forms of urban design ranging from artistic-creative to adapta-tion- or resilience-oriented that do not primarily target commercial exploitation.
Modern societies are largely dependent on individ-ual creativity and innovations for their economic devel-opment (Box 3.5-3). The generation and dissemination of innovations are seen as key growth drivers. Since local interaction facilitates the exchange of ideas (Jaffe et al., 1993), these processes have a spatial dimension in cities. A location’s Eigenart can thus offer a compet-itive advantage, since the local constellation and diver-sity of knowledge each create a unique starting point.
147 Local economic stimuli are further reinforced by
exter-nalities and the transfer of ideas and knowledge to uninvolved market participants, so-called knowledge spillovers (Romer, 1986; Lucas, 1988). This applies in particular if the proportion of qualified workers is high.
Richard Florida’s (2005) work on the ‘creative class’
and the relations between ‘talent, tolerance and tech-nology’ are the epitome of such a directly economically useful understanding of Eigenart. With reference to the
‘talent’ factor, increases in productivity are primarily to be expected in cities that generally succeed in attracting and keeping highly qualified people (Glaeser and Got-tlieb, 2006). Several different studies have shown that cities that offer a high quality of life are more success-ful at competing for highly qualified workers (Glaeser and Gottlieb, 2006; Glaeser et al., 2001; Shapiro, 2006;
Partridge, 2010). With reference to ‘tolerance’, Florida postulates that talented creative professionals such as artists, academics and entrepreneurs prefer cities where there is a high level of acceptance of different values, ways of living and cultural diversity. Cohen-det et al. (2009) and Chantelot et al. (2011) describe the different routes that creative ideas take on their way to commercial exploitation through different lay-ers of an urban society, and the divlay-erse, heterogene-ous structures that these require. This is instructive for the WBGU’s understanding of the importance of a high level of individual and collective cultural difference.
However, innovativeness can also be understood as a resource in other ways beyond generating economic effects; it can make it possible to handle future changes and risks in a reflective and creative way and create a readiness to accept or participate in transformative pro-cesses. Imai (2014) points to the relationships between small-scale social interaction spaces, social entrepre-neurship and creativity with effects for an adaptable and resilient urban design. With reference to urban planners, the role of cities as laboratories for future via-bility was referred to at an early stage (Jacobs, 1961).
In addition to urban planners, the momentum of
inten-tional experimentation and creative knowledge produc-tion in the modes of co-design and co-producproduc-tion has for some time also been driven forward more strongly by scientific actors, who increase the connectivity and reflectivity of city production in this way. In real-world laboratories (Schneidewind and Scheck, 2013), urban transition labs (Nevens et al., 2013; DRIFT, 2014), liv-ing labs (Liedtke et al., 2015; Evans and Karvonen, 2011) or sustainability transition (Luederitz et al., in print), urban design is being geared towards the guiding concept of sustainability and shaped jointly with local actors (Section 10.2.1.2).
3.5.4
Eigenart as an element for city rankings and analyses
With its normative Eigenart dimension, the WBGU is expanding its own perspective on the Great Trans-formation; at the same time it is entering new terri-tory in the analysis and evaluation of cities. The aim is to do more than introduce the need for local cul-tural diversity, the ‘right to the city’ and the recogni-tion of creative autonomy into the discourse on urban-ity and the future of cities. A further objective is to complement the concrete observations, analyses, eval-uations and comparisons of cities made by different global and local actors (from municipalities to UN Hab-itat) by adding an indicator that is capable of describ-ing Eigenart. A considerable amount of research work is still required to move closer to achieving this goal (Sec-tion 10.1.3). Even so, the above thoughts on the key categories can offer inspiration. Table 3.5-2 shows sev-eral proposals for possible indicators derived from the above-mentioned literature which need to be further developed; they can provide information on the three main priorities for observation. They need to be exam-ined to determine their local and culture-specific rele-vance and suitability. For example, the importance of Box 3.5-3
Understandings of social and technical innovations
Since the late 1980s, to make a distinction from inventions and innovations of a purely technical nature, innovation research has been using the term ‘social innovations’, which are needed in particular for a transformation towards a sustainable society (Zapf, 1989; Gillwald, 2000).
In a broad definition of innovation, no distinction is made between technical and social innovations; rather, attention is focused on the social processes as a result of which all
inno-vations are seen as social innoinno-vations. In innovation research this means, among other things, that a key role is assigned to the interpretation processes, i. e. to the social recognition of alternatives as novelties (Vordank, 2005: 43). What is more important for the study of social change and transformation processes in this context, however, is the focus on the change in social practice, i. e. the altering of established social practic-es and the emergence of alternative onpractic-es in the innovation process. Innovation is thus understood as an ‘innovation of social practices’ (Schwarz and Howaldt, 2013: 56), in which, for example, alternative materialities (such as technologies), social meanings and value orientations, new social settings and new skills change established routines.
148
Table 3.5-2
Ideas for indicators and sub-indices for the investigation of Eigenart.
Source: WBGU
Category Indicators Sub-indices
Requirements for urban quality of life
Walkability/cycleability > Short average distance and on-foot accessibility of places rele-vant to everyday life (work, consumption, leisure, social infra-structure)
> Safe and attractive cycle paths and footpaths
> Density or compactness and multi-functionality of city districts
> Footpaths as a percentage of the choice of means of transport (modal split)
Number and types/
frequencies of use of (semi-)public and multifunctional spaces
> Public parks and similar areas with diverse uses (e. g. lakes, play-grounds, sports facilities) as a percentage of total surface area
> Squares, public markets, libraries, religious institutions as a percentage of total surface area
> Frequency of use
> Use by different population groups
> Average length of stay
> Heterogeneity of the types of use (e. g. public events, meetings, demonstrations, social and leisure activities)
Number and types of use
of recreation areas > Public green and recreational areas as a percentage of total surface area per inhabitant
> Heterogeneity of the landscape, spatially enabled types of use
> Frequency of use
> Use by different population groups
> Average length of stay
> Heterogeneity of the current types of use (especially social and leisure activities, active movement)
Liveability/city rankings > City’s position in city rankings (e. g. ‘Most Liveable Cities Index’ in Monocle magazine; ‘Liveability Ranking and Overview’ of the Economist Intelligence Unit; ‘Mercer Quality of Living Survey’) Local identification and
local identity > Extent of the population’s local identification or local identity (partly measured as a subcategory of urban quality of life)
> Extent of local engagement (number of neighbourhood organiza-tions and their activities, willingness to get involved, current citizen engagement)
> Existence and scope of participatory processes and participation of the city population
Social cohesion > Level of social cohesion among the population or between differ-ent population groups (partly measured as an aspect of social capital)
> Extent of inclusion and social trust or level of social distrust and fear of crime
Innovative-ness, creativity, connectivity
Spaces for
experimenta-tion, grey zones > Presence of spaces for experiments, e. g. ‘unregulated’ barren land, innovatively used vacant buildings, spaces for interim use concepts
> Presence of space pioneers (e. g. art in public spaces, innovative living concepts)
> Functional, informal settlements as a percentage of total surface area
Social innovativeness > Number of bottom-up processes and urban-design or urban- development initiatives (e. g. cooperative building, inclusive urban design, urban gardening, etc.)
> Number and effectiveness of political funding programmes for social innovation
> Existence or number of real-world laboratories, urban transition labs or urban sustainability transition labs
Economic innovativeness > Social entrepreneurship
> Number of employees in the creative field
> Number of start-ups
> Research and development activities
> Number of patents
149 public spaces for social interactions or local
identifica-tion varies depending on the cultural region, since in some cultures social life takes place mainly in private spaces, in others also in public.
The WBGU proposes raising the status of Eigenart to that of a multi-dimensional construct; not only objective spatial conditions and observable phenom-ena of appropriation and diversity should be taken into account, but also subjective assessments by residents.
In this context it can be useful to observe real set-tings directly on site (e. g. using the behaviour-setting approach) and combining statistical and survey data with visual material (video ethnography, photographic
In this context it can be useful to observe real set-tings directly on site (e. g. using the behaviour-setting approach) and combining statistical and survey data with visual material (video ethnography, photographic