The ABC's of Placemaking Governance Learning from Amsterdam, Berlin and Copenhagen

DEGREE PROJECT IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2021

FILEMON WOLFRAM

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Rus playground in Lima, Peru. (Basurama, 2010)

Filemon Wolfram Master's Thesis

The ABC's of Placemaking Governance: →Learning from Amsterdam, Berlin and Copenhagen

Master's Thesis by Filemon Wolfram AG212X Degree Project in Urban and Regional Planning KTH Royal Institute of Technology / School of Architecture and the Built Environment 8.2.2021 Stockholm, Sweden

Supervisor: Andrew Karvonen Examiner: Tigran Haas The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Acknowledgement

I have received a great deal of help and support throughout the writing of this thesis. I would like to thank the following people for their contribution to this research:

I wish to thank the City of Helsinki for providing me with funding, and giving me the opportunity to conduct this research as part of their ongoing research project on placemaking.

I am thoroughly grateful to Salla Ahokas, Urban Planner at the City of Helsinki, for sending me continuous updates on relevant publications and projects to look into. As between theory and practice.

My supervisor, Associate Professor Andrew Karvonen, provided me with invaluable support in forming the academic foundation for the thesis. I am sincerely thankful to Andy for always answering my questions clearly and with impressive speed. Andy also went the extra mile when reviewing my early drafts, helping me form the structure and improve the language.

I also wish to thank Katja L. and Ramon M. for providing me with their professional opinions which helped me choose cities for the case studies, and Paula G. for giving her professional design inputs.

Filemon Wolfram Stockholm, January 2021

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 2 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Abstract

Placemaking is an approach to designing urban spaces based on their existing values and identities. It has emerged as a response to citizens wishing to have an active Placemaking often occurs from spontaneous consequences, with a diverse range of urban stakeholders involved in the process. Leading these complex processes has required local authorities to rethink their approach to urban governance. Despite municipalities being key actors in placemaking contexts, their role in the process is not well understood. Through a comparative case study of Amsterdam, Berlin and Copen- hagen, this thesis examines how local authorities have interpreted and contributed to placemaking. The cities are analysed with an analyticalframework consisting of their governance structures, spatial leadership roles, placemaking tools and facilitation of public participation. The results indicate that municipalities interpret placemaking to involve public participation in a place-bound approach. A wide range of stakeholders artists, neighbourhood associations, leisure time clubs, civic interest groups and private property developers. The roles of these actors were found to vary greatly from – the municipalities of Amsterdam, Berlin and Copenhagen generally take on a more observing, follower-dominant and bottom-linked role in the placemaking process. This more adaptive and observant role in their urban governance processes. This is especially evident within the placemaking context, which embraces the idea of co-creation and collaboration.

Keywords Urban planning, placemaking, urban governance, governance structure, spatial leadership, diy urbanism, collaborative planning, Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 3 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Sammandrag (på svenska)

Placemaking är ett förhållningssätt till att planera stadsmiljöer baserat på deras ex- isterande värden och identiteter. Det har framkommit som en respons till medborgar- nas önskan att ha en aktiv roll i planprocessen och kunna påverka utvecklingen av deras omgivning. Placemaking uppstår ofta ur spontana händelser, med en mångfald av aktörer involverade i processen. Ledandet av dessa komplexa processer har lett lokala myndigheter till att omvärdera sitt förhållningssätt till förvaltning av stadsmil- jön. Trots att kommuner ofta är nyckelaktörer i placemaking sammanhang, är deras roll i processen outforskad. Genom en jämförande fallstudie av Amsterdam, Berlin och Köpenhamn, utforskar detta examensarbete hur lokala myndigheter har tolkat och bidragit till placemaking. Städerna har analyserats utifrån ett konceptuellt ram- verk bestående av dess förvaltningsstrukturer, ledarskapsroller, placemaking-verktyg och främjandet av allmänhetens deltagande. Resultaten tyder på att kommuner tolkar placemaking som allmänhetens deltagande ur ett platsbundet perspektiv. En rad av intressenter, inklusive lokala myndigheter, konstnärer, grannskapssammanslutningar, fritidsföreningar, medborgerliga intressegrupper och privata fastighetsutvecklare, har utsträckning från projekt till projekt. Studien drar slutsatsen att lokala myndigheterna i Amsterdam, Berlin och Köpenhamn generellt intar en mera observerande, följar-dom- - ibilitet. Denna observation tyder på att 2000-talets städer har intagit mera adaptiva och observerande roller i sina förvaltningsprocesser. Detta är speciellt uppenbart inom placemaking-sammanhang, som omfamnar idéer om medskapande och samarbete.

Yhteenveto (suomeksi)

Placemaking on kaupunkitilamuotoilun lähestymistapa, jonka ajatuksena on suun- nitella tiloja niiden olemassa olevien arvojen ja identiteettien perusteella. Placemaking syntyi vastauksena kaupunkilaisten toiveelle saada aktiivisempi rooli kaupunkisuun- nittelun prosesseissa sekä oman ympäristönsä kehityksen vaikuttamiseen. Place- making-menetelmät synnyttävät usein spontaaneja suunnitteluprosesseja, joiden kehittämisessä ovat mukana useat kaupungin eri toimijat ja sidosryhmät. Koska placemaking-prosessit ovat monimutkaisia, useissa kaupungeissa on jouduttu pohtimaan kaupungin roolia niiden hallinnoimisessa ja johtamisessa. Vaikka paikalliset virano- maiset ovat avaintoimijoita placemakingissa, heidän roolinsa tässä prosessissa on yhä kohtalaisen huonosti ymmärretty. Tämä tutkimus käyttää vertailevaa tapaustutkimusta Amsterdamista, Berliinistä ja Kööpenhaminasta tutkiakseen, kuinka paikalliset virano- maiset ovat tulkinneet placemakingia ja myötävaikuttaneet sen edistämiseen osana kaupungin suunnitteluprosesseja. Näiden kolmen kaupungin placemaking-prosesseja analysoidaan neljästä eri analyyttisesta näkökulmasta: hallintorakenteet, johtamis- roolit, placemaking-työkalut sekä osallisuusprosessit. Tutkimustulokset osoittavat, että kaupunkien mielestä olennainen osa placemaking-prosesseja on mahdollistaa monipuolisten sidosryhmien osallistuminen niihin. Placemaking-prosesseihin osallis- tui tapaustutkimuksen kohteena olleista kolmesta kaupungista laaja kirjo erilaisia si- dosryhmiä, kuten viranomaisia, taiteilijoita, asukasyhdistyksiä, paikallisia seuroja ja muita paikallisia ryhmiä. Toimijoiden roolit vaihtelivat suuresti erilaisten placemaking-projektien välillä. Tutkimuksesta käy ilmi, että Amsterdamin, Berliinin ja Kööpen- haminan kaupungit ovat – jonkinasteista opportunistista joustavuutta lukuun ottamatta – placemaking-prosesseissa omaksuneet tarkkailevan, sivustakatsovan roolin, joka on sidottuna ruohonjuuritason toimintaan. Tämä havainto avaa kaupunkien hallinnollisia rooleja placemaking-prosessien viitekehyksessä ja luo näkymän siihen, miten roolit ovat muuttuneet 2000-luvulla merkittävästi yhteistyöpainotteisempaan ja mahdollista- vampaan suuntaan.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 4 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 6 1.1 Aim and Research Questions 6 1.2 Structure 7 2. Literature Review 8 2.1 Placemaking 8 2.2 Urban Governance and Spatial Leadership 14 2.3 Placemaking Governance 15 3. Conceptual Framework 17 4. Methodology 19 4.1 Research Methods 19 4.2 Analysis of Data 21 5. Case Study of Amsterdam 22 5.1 Amsterdam in Context 22 5.2 Urban Governance of Amsterdam 24 5.3 Placemaking in Amsterdam 26 6. Case Study of Berlin 34 6.1 Berlin in Context 34 6.2 Urban Governance of Berlin 36 6.3 Placemaking in Berlin 38 7. Case Study of Copenhagen 45 7.1 Copenhagen in Context 45 7.2 Urban Governance of Copenhagen 47 7.3 Placemaking in Copenhagen 49 8. Comparison and Analysis of Results 58 9. Conclusion 63 9.1 Discussion and Suggested Further Research 64 References 66 Figure References 75

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 5 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

1. Introduction

Contemporary planning discourse has seen a growing focus on more democratic and people-centred methods of designing cities. This agenda is embodied by the emer- gence of placemaking. Placemaking is an approach to designing regions, cities and neighbourhoods based on their existing values and identities. Placemaking should be done in deep collaboration with those who are affected by and involved with these places (Project for Public Spaces, 2007). Placemaking can be seen as a stark contrast to the 20th century modernist approach of forcing an external agenda on a place through a strongly hierarchical form of urban planning. This paradigm shift is also evident in the pursuit of alternative governance forms that seek to decentralize and democratize the management, development and planning of urban space (Kearns and Paddison, 2000; Healey, 2006; Friedmann, 2010). Since involving a variety of different actors throughout the planning process is a central aspect of placemaking, these governance forms are of particular relevance in the context of placemaking. In addition to involving many different actors, the values and identities of places are often emerging from largely unplanned, spontaneous consequences, making the management and leadership of placemaking processes particularly challenging (Collinge and Gibney, 2010).

to work effectively with placemaking, a better understanding is needed of the governance approaches that can facilitate complex partnerships and stakeholder involvement. While recent literature on placemaking is extensive, and with a wide range of disciplines involved in it, there are relatively few publications written for and by planners (Friedmann, 2010). With placemaking studies focusing on the role of artists and citizens, a research gap has emerged in the role of authorities in the placemaking or failure of the placemaking process. Using case studies of three different cities – Am- sterdam, Berlin and Copenhagen – this thesis will shed light on how local authorities have organized around the governance of placemaking. The cities were chosen based on their reputation as having implemented successful placemaking policies, portraying an attractive image, and scoring well in various quality of life indexes (Barrett, 2015; Locke, 2019; Zapata, 2020).

In order to study best practice examples of the role of local authorities in placemaking processes, four elements of the case study cities will be analysed. These elements include: (1) governance structures, (2) spatial leadership roles, (3) what tools the municipality has at their disposal in the context of placemaking, and (4) how public partic- will be analysed from the perspective of placemaking processes.

1.1 Aim and Research Questions

The aim of this thesis is to examine how local authorities have interpreted and contributed to placemaking. The study focuses on studying the process of placemaking, instead of assessing the design elements or evaluating the outcomes. Elements that were studied included governance structures, spatial leadership, placemaking tools, and public participation. Municipalities are the object of study.

The study addresses the following research questions:

1. How do municipalities interpret placemaking for their particular contextual conditions? 2. Which urban stakeholders are involved in placemaking and what roles do they play? 3. How do the stakeholders execute placemaking, and what are the outcomes?

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 6 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

1.2 Structure

This thesis starts with a literature review, providing background knowledge and context on the themes that are relevant to the study. This involves a summary of previously conducted research on placemaking, urban governance and the governance of placemaking. Chapter 3 provides an overview on the conceptual framework of the research. given here. Chapter 4 then presents the methodology of the research, and states the epistemology and ontology which were guiding the research.

organized around placemaking. Each individual city; Amsterdam, Berlin and Copen- hagen, is presented and analysed in separate chapters. Each of these chapters starts with background information on the city to set it into a relevant context. After this, an order to determine the governance structure aspect of the conceptual framework for this research. How placemaking processes are being perceived and how the authorities have organized around it is then analysed, with practical examples given in the of the conceptual framework.

After each city has been presented and analysed, the similarities and differences be- the thesis in a wider context. Suggestions for further research are also given here. The study provides new insights on how local authorities engage in placemaking pro-

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 7 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

2. Literature Review

This chapter provides background on key topics that are relevant to this study. It starts with an overview of what placemaking is, how it came to be, and what its central aspects and ideas are. The main theories around placemaking are presented, and the Practical examples and illustrations are given where deemed useful. After this, a brief overview is given on the urban governance and spatial leadership discourse. This entails a historical overview of the management of urban development projects, and a presentation of dominant theories around it. The chapter concludes by combining the two main bodies of literature in this research: urban governance theory and placemaking theory, into the governance and management of placemaking processes. Different - dations and guidelines analysed from a governance perspective.

2.1 Placemaking

Much has been said and written about the ever-growing global urbanisation rate, which has led to the rise of megacities around the world on a scale never seen before. Com- bined with major shifts in the global economic system, this increasing agglomeration of people has inherently changed the economic, political and social role of the city. Many scholars (Sassen, 1991; Castells, 1996; Taylor 2004) have argued that cities have over- the role and power of inter-city networks. While the growing importance of cities can be argued to have taken place mainly at the expense of rural areas, the distribution of wealth and power within cities themselves have been criticized for being unequal and increasingly polarizing. Authors such as Jacobs (1961) and Lefebvre (1968) have pleaded for a more equal and democratic distribution of space in cities. Much of their of ordinary people and having a negative impact on urban life.

In the midst of these changes, cities have struggled to balance between economic has led to urban planning being dominated by local governments wanting to “brand” their cities in the hope of attracting investors (Kearns and Paddison, 2000; Majoor, 2008; Friedmann, 2010; Dupre, 2018). Trying to gain a competitive edge, cities have based planning decisions on how attractive they seem to investors. Prioritizing the economic interests has seen many lively squares, parks and mixed-use districts turned has resulted in a loss of sociable, accessible and attractive places which lie at the heart of lively cities and comfortable urban life. With ambitious, high-rise skyscrapers surrounded by large-scale, car-centred infrastructure projects dominating much of the urban landscape around the world, urban theorists are increasingly focusing on creating attractive, human-scale places that encourage and invite people to socialize and engage in various activities (Fig. 1) (UN Habitat, 2015; Project for Public Spaces, 2018; Perrault et al, 2020).

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 8 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Fig.1 Children playing in a temporary playground built from recycled materials in a reclaimed, unused infrastructure space in Lima, Peru. This project can be consedered a model example of placemaking in practice. (Basurama, 2010)

Placemaking has emerged as one of the most dominant responses to these issues. - ing a neighbourhood, a city or a region by paying particular attention to the existing val- placemaking is to create and recreate places based on what is already there, instead ideas, wishes and needs, the risk of negative side-effects of redevelopment, such as down approaches (Project for Public Spaces, 2018). While placemaking is mainly an approach describing the process, and not the end result of creating places, there are certain elements that are common for many successful placemaking projects. These - urban life and social equity in cities has been found to be essential for cities to prosper economically (Glaeser and Gottlieb, 2008; UN Habitat, 2015).

In order to translate placemaking from an abstract term to a concrete topic, in the context of this research, placemaking is expanded to include the values and methods associated with it, instead of limiting focus on usage of the term itself. These values

Community-driven, visionary, function before form, adaptable, inclusive, focused -

- -

In addition to these value words, certain planning concepts, such as DIY urbanism and public participation are analysed from a placemaking perspective.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 9 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

back further than that. The purpose and approach of placemaking has its roots in the ideas of Jane Jacobs and William H. Whyte, who introduced their revolutionary ideas ideas of Jacobs and Whyte were revolutionary for their time and respective contexts, the kind of ideal cities they advocated for were not new concepts. Before the mid-20th century modernist movements started planning for car- and shopping centre-dominated cities, most cities had many of the qualities associated with a good quality of life and lively urban spaces (Caves, 2004). New Urbanism, a movement which rose to placemaking is advocating for. While New Urbanism advocates for compact, walkable, lively neighbourhood-cities from before the automobile-era, it also promotes a social mix of ethnicity, income and age (Kelbaugh, 2000; Haas, 2008). All of these technical and social ideals are also integral to placemaking. What sets placemaking apart from New Urbanism is its approach, as placemaking also seeks to comprehensively involve all stakeholders and citizens in the planning process, while highlighting their narrative and the identity and values of the place.

The paradigm of involving citizens in the planning process is often called participatory planning. Contrary to hierarchical and authoritarian planning agendas, participatory planning seeks to facilitate the planning process in a way that allows communities - tate effectively and justly, participatory planning can improve socio-economic equality, about participatory urban planning and slum upgrading in Kenya (Fig. 2), Majale (2008) also found that local authorities developing and executing plans together with the local community contributed to a rise in local employment-levels and overall quality of life. While participatory processes are an integral part of it, placemaking expands on participatory planning by adding place-based approaches, such as place-narratives to it. In the context of this thesis, placemaking is also expanded to include the values and methods associated with it.

Fig.2 The Kipsongo slum in Kitale, Kenya. The informal settlement used to have shanties made of nylon papers. Participatory planning was found to improve living conditions for the area's residents. (Robert Manyra)

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 10 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

To help better understand what placemaking consists of, the process can be divided

identify, activate and involve the key stakeholders and interest groups affected by the project (Project for Public Spaces, 2018; Perrault et al., 2020). Individual citizens, citizen groups and the private sector, among others, need to be represented throughout the placemaking process. Much like in any participatory planning project, an extensive dialogue should be established in an early phase. In other words, stakeholders should be involved before any proposals are being laid out, instead of involving them by offer- ing the chance to comment on an external design or a strategic idea (Nared and Bole, 2020). This thesis does not follow the traditional notion of design-driven urban devel- -

(2) The second step in the placemaking process is to identify place narratives to would prefer it to be. These narratives can be about both design details and general strategic directions. In order to create a just place-narrative, the key stakeholders of power should ideally be shared in a way which does not allow for strong hierarchies to be born between the stakeholders (Pierce et al., 2011). If certain stakeholders are allowed to dominate over others in the creation of the place narrative, the purpose of placemaking runs the risk of being reversed. As Blokland (2009) points out in her paper, history has shown plenty of cases where the narrative of a certain group of people has dominated over others in the context of redevelopment and urban planning. In her paper, she addresses the absence of “Black Poor residents” in the narrative of a gen- involving some of its main stakeholders can, in addition to harming the overlooked - place-break- ingHutongs (Fig. 3-4) being bulldozed to replace them with modern apartments as an example of - ture and reduced its crowdedness, the way in which they were implemented erased a for more than 500 years (Ibid). Placemaking aims at redevelopment to improve the quality of life without erasing the way of life.

Fig.3-4 Beijing's Hutongs pictured before (left) and after (right) the redevelopment which can be seen as the opposite of placemaking. (Charles Liu)

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 11 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

(3) The third step in the placemaking process is to activate the space and signal developing an already established and well-used and/or populated area, the place-narrative can be created on what is already there. In these cases, the short-term interven- completely new narrative needs to be created. This can be the case for example when developing an entirely new area on formerly undeveloped land, or when redeveloping former industrial areas due to a process of deindustrialisation. An example of a new place narrative being created before settling on the urban design of a formerly industrial area can be seen in the Jubileumsparken 0.5 project in Gothenburg, Sweden. When redeveloping the old, centrally located, former harbour area, the city wanted to fabric with new homes and more diverse job opportunities. In order to create a sense - porary prototypes and events to be developed in an informal, DIY urbanism fashion, instalments, such as a public sauna (Fig. 5) and a pool have been included as “existing” in the detailed development plan, hinting at an intention to make them more long- term (Dahl, 2016). These tactical, short-term interventions are widely used in both new developments and when redeveloping existing areas. They are often paired with other activities, such as events and public discussions (Richards, 2016; Dupre, 2018). The purpose is to signal an intention of redevelopment, build a sense of community, activate stakeholders, and test different solutions in practice. Short-term interventions are therefore the third step in a placemaking process, after public participation and place

Fig.5 The public sauna in Fri- hamnen, Gothenburg. (The author, 2019).

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 12 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

(4) The fourth step in the placemaking process is to create and implement the medium to long-term plans and visions for the area. The medium to long-term plans debate on whether or not these plans should include the temporary solutions from step - (Project for Public Spaces, 2018). Those who advocate for the formalisation argue that it is necessary in order to have a clear division of post-occupancy duties and responsibilities between stakeholders (Perrault et al., 2020). Regardless of how it is facilitated, there is a general consensus on the importance of maintaining the active involvement of stakeholders even after the long-term plans have been implemented (Project for Public Spaces, 2018; Bain and Landau, 2019; Perrault et al., 2020).

- making effort in the long-term and to continuously re-evaluate the situation. The placemaking process should ideally not be seen from the perspective of conventional projects with a distinct beginning and end. It should instead be regarded as an ongoing process, where the quality of the place is assessed continually, and redevelopments, adjustments and maintenance of the place are done according to needs. Sustaining active stakeholder involvement while the area is being used is important for assessing and Landau, 2019; Perrault et al., 2020). Low and Iveson (2016) also highlight that all stakeholders, including the municipality, should be involved in the maintenance of pub- and to maintain public access without depending on private capital.

Fig.6 The placemaking process can be summarized to include the

the social equity for disadvantaged or oppressed groups, the complexity of including the input of everyone living in or visiting a place, and being able to consider and utilize Gibney (2010) also identify the spatial leadership of placemaking processes to be particularly challenging due to the complex, and often spontaneous nature of it.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 13 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

2.2 Urban Governance and Spatial Leadership

It is widely recognized that the management and leadership of cities have undergone These changes have occurred partly due to the changes in the nature of cities and urban life, as well as changes in the global economic system, and a response to the failure of the top-down, hierarchical governance approach of the mid-20th century to forms that can better facilitate creativity, democratic processes and public participation (Healey, 2004). These forms of managing urban space are often grouped together under the umbrella term urban governance governance as “the formulation and pursuit of collective goals at the local level of the political system”. Contrary to traditional approaches to urban politics, they argue that governance theory does not make assumptions about which actors are most important in the pursuit of collective goals. The blurring of lines between the public and the private sector has often been described as a key ingredient in the shift from government to governance. However, it could also be argued that due to political institutions still maintaining a leading – if not dominant – role in urban governance, this might not have been as much a distinct shift as simply a change in the character of government. This new role and character of municipal governments in urban governance is often described as steering, instead of rowing (Ibid).

urban policies are managed more through informal activities and coalitions between different actors than through the formal, hierarchical planning processes of the 20th century. Urban governance has increasingly included various actors in planning pro- Blokland, 2009). Including these resourceful local players in planning processes is one of the main advantages of the urban governance approach (Peters and Pierre, 2012). While this has increased public participation and democracy in planning, the growing - hmood, 2015; Low and Iveson, 2016).

The growing complexity of social life has also seen a rise in political decentralization, a key aspect of urban governance (Kearns and Paddison, 2000; Gulsrud et al., 2018). Municipalities are granted a larger degree of autonomy, while local communities and own environments. This paradigm shift in inter-governmental relations is embodied in the rise of multi-level governance, an alternative form to traditional, hierarchical inter-governmental relations. Since multi-level governance is essentially non-hierarchical, cities and transnational institutions can collaborate directly with one another, without involving the national government (Peters and Pierre, 2012). This can for example be seen in many European cities and regions sending their own representatives to Brussels to lobby EU politicians and bureaucrats directly (Ibid).

The decentralization of power has coincided with a new agenda for more creative governance forms (Blokland, 2009). There is a common conception of a dualistic opposition between creativity and governance (Healey, 2004). Businesses and people work- and suffer from attempts to govern and manage urban life through formal governance processes (Ibid). However, while the harmful potential of formal governance structures on creativity is widely recognized by them, most urban scholars argue that creativity and governance structures do not necessarily counteract one another, but are in fact intertwined phenomena. Advocates for multi-level, 21st century urban governance the potential to foster and strengthen creative processes even in formal environments (Ibid).

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 14 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

The spatial leadership roles of municipalities are often described using binaries, such as top-down or bottom-up, leader-dominance or follower-dominance, and purposive situations and for understanding the general idea of different approaches, the reality of urban governance is rarely so black and white. Most of these extremes exist on a spectrum, and municipalities often position themselves between these extremes in different contexts. As Baker and Mehmood (2015) point out, there are bottom-linked strategies in between top-down and bottom-up extremities. These bottom-linked strategies join up formal initiatives with grassroot initiatives. Furthermore, Collinge and Gib- - ship. A leader-dominant role implies that the municipality exercises direct, hierarchical power over all other stakeholders in the project, and always holds the decisive vote in decision-making processes, whereas a follower-dominant role implies that the municipality is simply one stakeholder among many, and decision-making is always done by consensus. They also highlight that different governance processes are rarely the result of completely purposive or spontaneous organisations, but are usually a mix of different elements. Few (if any) municipalities rely solely on spontaneous grassroot initiatives while refraining from exercising power over others, while even the most authoritarian municipalities are rarely categorically ignoring all grassroot movements and stakeholder involvement. However, when studying the general governance structures possible to place them on a spectrum of these different elements, and compare them to other municipalities. This thesis studies these elements of urban governance structure and spatial leadership that municipalities have adopted in the context of placemaking processes.

2.3 Placemaking Governance

The spontaneous, complex, continuous and networked nature of placemaking poses a serious challenge to the management and leadership of the process. The Project for Public Spaces (2018) categorize the governance structure of urban development projects into four different types on a spectrum: (1) Project-driven, with a top-down, bureaucratic leadership style. (2) Discipline-led, with responsibility handed over to the singular vision of designers or other professional specialists. (3) Place-sensitive, with a united effort to include the community, but architects and designers effectively leading the process. And, (4) truly place-led, with place outcomes built on community engagement, where planning and management of public space is seen as a group activity with no dominant authority. They argue that the truly place-led governance structure type is to be considered a best-practice approach for placemaking projects (Ibid). This view is also supported by Collinge and Gibney (2010), who argue that placemaking contexts tend to be of a spontaneous nature, making it unresponsive to direct leadership and therefore generally taking the shape of follower-dominance. They suggest that municipalities could adopt the role of the intelligent host in placemaking contexts. In this role, without exercising much power themselves (Ibid). In this approach, municipalities function as intermediaries that facilitate placemaking through soft power, indicating that urban stakeholders.

A particular challenge which emerges in placemaking projects with a non-authoritarian, follower-dominant leadership style, is the ambiguousness of situations with more than one place-narratives competing for dominance. While a dominant authority with power over other stakeholders could solve these issues with a quick and direct decision, it could lead to undemocratic and unjust bias towards certain stakeholders. Pierce et al. (2011) uses the case of a suburban area in Athens, Georgia, USA, to illustrate how competing place-frames can emerge in placemaking situations. When hospital as the main economic actor in the area, and the area as a single-family housing neighbourhood. The authors advocate for a relational placemaking approach as a - lational placemaking approach seeks to identify points of contention, and build place-

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 15 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Athens, Georgia, many hospital workers were found to live or spend a lot of time in the with the hospital. Building on these overlapping and intersecting commonalities, a new place-narrative was created based on the common interests of the different actors. The relational placemaking approach highlights the need for an extensive dialogue between stakeholders.

need for a new role to be given to artists, arguing that they should be stakeholders among many others. In her paper about the National Endowment for the Arts, she problematizes the common conception of artists working as separate, independent actors with their own visions for urban development. Instead of allocating resources directly to arts organizations and allowing them to work independently, they should be brought to the centre of the community and work together with the other actors in a multi-disciplinary environment (Ibid). She advocates for a multi-level governance approach to facilitate this. With a multi-level governance approach removing many of the and Pierre, 2012; Bain and Landau, 2019).

Accountability is generally seen as a cornerstone of good governance practice (UN Habitat, 2014). This is of particular relevance to placemaking processes, where the boundary between stakeholder power and responsibility is often blurred and unclear. Bain and Landau (2019) highlight the issue of accountability in their problematization of municipalities externalising placemaking to artists. They criticise municipalities for “disappearing” once an area has been redeveloped and leaving other stakeholders, namely artists and creative people, in charge of maintaining the place. Since these stakeholders generally lack the resources, time and energy needed for this, it can are the only ones both willing and capable of maintaining the place, they tend to become the de facto gate-keepers of it. In addition to accountability issues and an un- collaborations between artists and municipalities: navigating the bureaucracy of the - ing active stakeholder involvement. Perrault et al. (2020) suggest that formalising the collaborative work in more formalised management and governance models can help sustain the long-term efforts of the placemaking process. However, this view is con- tested by some scholars (Project for Public Spaces, 2018), who argue that formalising placemaking processes can counteract community engagement efforts, and lead to

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 16 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

3. Conceptual Framework

The aim of this thesis is to examine how local authorities have interpreted and contributed to placemaking. The units of analysis that form the conceptual framework used to examine the role of local authorities in placemaking processes include: (1) governance structures, (2) spatial leadership roles, (3) the tools used in the context of placemaking, and (4) facilitation of public participation. These four units of analysis are studied from the perspective of the municipality.

Fig. 7 The conceptual framework guiding the analysis in this thesis.

With respect to governance structures, aspects such as inter-governmental relations, are relevant. Inter-governmental relations involve the power-relationships and hierarchies between the national, regional, municipal and local governments (Peters and Pierre, 2012). Centralization/decentralization of power in the context of municipalities environments, whether it be through a formal local authority, or through more informal planning organisations determines how the planning department is divided, and how collaboration between professionals of different disciplines is facilitated. Planning policies are also studied from the perspective of how they align with the predetermined values and approaches associated with placemaking.

With respect to spatial leadership roles, municipalities are assessed based on the the kind of power (soft or hard) the municipality exercises in them, and who initiates discipline-led, place-sensitive and truly place-based leadership is useful to analyse the three case study cities on a spectrum of spatial leadership roles. For hierarchies, development projects. In traditional urban planning projects, the municipality generally employs a direct, top-down approach. In placemaking contexts, hierarchies tend to be more indirect and vertical (Collinge and Gibney, 2010; Pierce et al., 2011; Project for assessed for the kind of power they exercise over others, and the democratic quality of - inance and leader-dominance is the guiding theory for this analysis. Whether urban development projects are initiated by the private sector, civic groups, local authorities or by the municipality is helpful to situate the municipality on the top-down/bottom-up spectrum (Pierce et al. 2011).

- search grants, policies, competitions, events and networks is relevant. Redaelli (2016) partnerships. Research can be used to frame problems, shape public action and spur while partnerships help to attract new actors, such as artists and local residents, to in placemaking processes (Richards, 2016). Events can be used to ignite interest in the potential of the area and to signal the intent to improve the area to local residents.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 17 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

While these can be useful tools for municipalities to support other stakeholders in the placemaking process, some decisions require a more technocratic decision-making - concepts into community-level decision-making, municipalities use visual, interactive platforms to develop support for technocratic decisions. The City of Melbourne used a trees to their citizens (Gulsrud et al., 2018). This campaign was useful for the city to take the hugely unpopular, but necessary, decision to remove trees that could have become a safety risk for local residents. Melbourne also used the visual platform to consult citizens on the kinds of trees they would want to replace the removed trees, different types of trees (Ibid).

Despite not being a tool per se, DIY urbanism, also known as tactical urbanism or guer- rilla urbanism, is studied as a method to activate urban spaces and create place-nar- - root movements in urban development. Municipalities may in some cases facilitate DIY creator entails an analysis of their role in bringing different stakeholders together and creating various public-private partnerships.

When studying public participation, it is necessary to examine who is involved, how they are involved and their role in the placemaking process. Public participation in urban planning contexts examines the extent to which the general public is involved in the planning process (Abbott, 1996). Involving citizens in the planning process has been found to improve the quality of life, employment-rates and social justice (Majale, 2008). As public participation is a key concept in placemaking, studying how public participation is facilitated is key to understanding the placemaking process in general (Project for Public Spaces, 2018). The research assesses both the extent to which the public is involved and which tools and methods facilitate this involvement. To analyse - jects are studied to see who is involved, and their roles in the process.

These four units of analysis form the foundation of the study and guide the research methods chosen to examine how local authorities have interpreted and contributed to placemaking.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 18 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

4. Methodology

- - conducted during the fall of 2020 as a comparative case study of three different cities, - ban development projects.

4.1 Research Methods

Ontology philosophers, with several competing theories on the nature of reality (Mol, 1999). The study of how knowledge about reality is created is called epistemology. There are, and have historically been, many competing theories about how knowledge is created as time (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009). This thesis is guided mainly by a social constructionist view on how knowledge is created. Social constructionism sees reality as points are that science is an active and social process, that does not provide a direct link between nature to ideas about nature (Ibid). This means that science is seen as a way of linking ideas together with reality through human-driven interpretations, instead of there being a direct, independent link between the two. When studying political governance structures and decision-making processes, a social constructionist epistemology indicates an active, human-driven interpretation of urban planning-related issues.

Due to the complex and inter-relational nature of problems related to urban planning, many of them are considered to be wicked problems, meaning that they are essentially unique, with no immediate or ultimate ways to test different solutions (Rittel and sciences often turn to qualitative research methods to acquire knowledge (Queiros et geographical contexts, such as governance structures and leadership roles of municipalities, a qualitative research method was chosen to gather data. As a situated activity, where the observer has an active role, researchers using qualitative methods should acquiring knowledge (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009).

accepted, concrete procedures for acquiring new knowledge”. In order to study how desk study. A desk study means that data is gathered by reading documents and web- sites, and/or using data from previously conducted research, instead of creating new for this research, since an understanding of the conceptual framework of governance structures, spatial leadership roles, placemaking tools, and public participation processes requires a very broad range of information to be gathered and analysed. Trian- gulation of data is ensured by gathering data from several different sources.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 19 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

studies (MacCallum et al., 2019). Case studies gather detailed information about a questions that deal with a range of different, inter-dependent issues (Ibid). Case studies can be done by studying just one case, or many different cases. When choosing how many cases to include, it is of relevance to consider the nature of the study. Mac- Callum et al., (2019, p.49) give some examples of research questions, where a multiple case study is relevant:

How do two different governance arrangements (e.g. centralised vs decentralised approval of subdivisions) affect the way that developers work with communities? What range of planning strategies is used by local governments in Region X to facilitate economic development?

Since the research questions in this thesis are about both governance arrangements and planning strategies, a multiple case study approach was found to be most effective. The research approach of this thesis is a comparative case study of three different cities: Amsterdam, Berlin and Copenhagen. The cities were chosen based on their reputation as leading placemaking cities. In addition, they are consistently ranked at the top of various liveability and quality of life rankings, such as the EIU Liveability Ranking, 2015; Locke, 2019; Zapata, 2020). While these rankings should not be taken at face value and regarded as absolute, undisputed truths, the same cities being consistently mentioned in different rankings suggests that those cities are comparably successful in many of the aspects relevant for this research as well. These aspects include social inclusion and equality, health and well-being, adequate housing, mobility and public transport, and access to green public spaces (Barrett, 2015). Successful and liveable cities were chosen for case studies in order to gain an understanding on the similarities - ographic proximity and similar socio-political contexts were also a conscious decision, to create a symmetrical study where the different cases can be compared with one another. According to MacCallum et al. (2019), it is important to note that a comparative cannot be universally generalized or applied to other cases. However, the usefulness of comparative case studies lies in that they can give information to and indicate the most likely outcomes in other cases in a similar context and under similar circumstances.

The data gathered through the comparative case study of Amsterdam, Berlin and Co- penhagen was analysed using the four different units of analysis; leadership roles, governance structures, placemaking tools and public participation. Since the conceptual framework touches upon a variety of subjects of a different nature, different kinds of documents are analysed for different aspects of the study. To study the leadership roles - ducted. The general governance structures of the cities were analysed by studying the - ously conducted research on similar topics was used to triangulate the data.

chosen cities are European, the results of the study are mainly relevant to other Europe- an cities, while cities in other parts of the world may have different characteristics. The and thus, no comprehensive insights on placemaking governance can be made from it. limited to a handful of key ideas and units of analysis. As only secondary data sources are used, further insights on the case studies could also be developed by gathering primary data in each city. As this thesis focuses mainly on aspects of the urban com- mons, a perspective of public good or urban spaces could also contribute to a better understanding of the topic.

There are no ethical issues to address in the proposed methodology. All materials are publicly available on the internet.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 20 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

4.2 Analysis of Data

Data from the secondary sources were extracted by identifying certain keywords, elements and policies. These included, among others, the word placemaking, DIY urbanism, public participation, urban governance and participatory planning. The data was into different categories within the documents, depending on which of the four units of analysis it referred to.

To create a comprehensible narrative for each case study, a separate chapter was made for each city, in which the data is both presented and analysed. First, the case extracted and analysed separately from the rest of the data. This was done, since the secondary sources used for this were of a different nature, consisting mainly of history books, news articles and statistical summaries. While the data used in the urban governance analysis was gathered together with the other elements of the conceptual framework, a separate sub-chapter in each city was created to analyse it. This was done because an analysis of the urban governance structure is less dependent on - - ysis of the three other units of analysis (leadership roles, placemaking tools and public participation) is summarised in separate sections for each city. Since the development projects can embody many different theoretical elements, the analysis is divided here into projects, rather than units of analysis. However, the units of analysis are used as the basis in the chapter comparing the different case studies with one another. This was done, since the comparison becomes more tangible and clearer when divided into each element from the conceptual framework.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 21 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

5. Case Study of Amsterdam

Fig.8 Amsterdam on a satellite image of Western Europe. (Google Earth, the author) 5.1 Amsterdam in Context

Amsterdam, the capital and most populous city of the Netherlands, has an urban population of over 1,1 million inhabitants (United Nations, 2018). Amsterdam is located some 20km inland from the western coast of the Netherlands, in the province of North Holland. The city is connected to the ocean by the North Sea Canal, improving the connectivity of the Port of Amsterdam, which is one of the largest ports in Europe (Lis- has contributed to Amsterdam, with its 177 different nationalities, becoming one of the most diverse cities in the world (Migiro, 2019). Amsterdam is known for its world-leading bicycle infrastructure, vibrant urban life, buzzing nightlife and liberal drug-use and worldwide (Nello-Deakin and Nikolaeva, 2020; Karssenberg and Laven, 2017; Project for Public Spaces, 2017; Aalbers and Sabat, 2012).

Being one of the most polycentric metropolitan regions in Western Europe, Amsterdam - (Fig. 9 - sterdam is marked by the narrow, colourful, detailed facades dating back to the Dutch housing prices and overcrowding of the city (Niitamo, 2020). Despite some problems becoming a hot spot for cultural activities, lively urban places and an attractive loca- density has also enabled the development of a well-functioning public transportation system. The relative proximity to services throughout the city has also been a solid

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 22 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Fig.9 Aerial image of Amsterdam's canals. city structure is clearly visible in the street lay-out (Peter Elenbaas, 2019)

working class with the Plan Zuid control from private developers to the municipality, the Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan Fig. 10). These plans were made partially as a reaction to wealthier citizens leaving the city for the countryside. This large-scale planning was made possi- expansion until the end of the 20th century (Ibid). Amsterdam has historically been a pioneer city in creating public spaces of high quality. This was highlighted already in the early-mid 20th century plans, which created complete public spaces, as well as in nobility and the Church (Karssenberg and Laven, 2017).

Fig.10 The Algemeen Uitbrei- master plan, which as- serted the municipality's control in planning the city of Amsterdam. (van Estereen Museum)

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 23 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

- velopment. While the city, like most Western cities, experienced a period of car-centred - (VanHoose and Savini, 2017). Today, the municipality continues to build on its heritage of human-centred urban planning, with priority being given to the creation of functional, - - nomic functions to attract visitors (City of Amsterdam, 2020a). However, working with human-centred values and public participation in mind, the City of Amsterdam has had

5.2 Urban Governance of Amsterdam

Spatial planning in the Netherlands (Fig. 11) is regulated by the Spatial Planning Act, 2017). Structure plans are made on national (the Netherlands), provincial (North Hol- in land-use planning, while the national and provincial governments only get involved in issues of national or regional importance, rarely using their power to overrule municipal creation is highlighted by the national government retaining a strong presence at the local level, despite the decentralized nature of land-use planning in the country (Ibid; Al- exander, 2002; van der Valk, 2002). Municipal dependence on the national government largely stems from receiving 80 % of their income from the central government (Kokx and van Kempen, 2010). The central government legitimizes their local involvement in the interest of increasing spatial equality (Ibid). The central government works mainly on monitoring social issues at the local level, leaving detailed spatial planning to the - tial equity is their control over funding for public transportation (Hirschhorn et al., 2019).

Fig.11 The governance structure of Amsterdam.

The city council is the highest governing body of Amsterdam, and forms the Amster- dam city government together with the College of Mayors and Alderpersons (City of Amsterdam, 2020b). The municipal organization is composed of 5 different administrations, an administrative and corporate staff and 7 city districts (City of Amsterdam, forming an additional level of government. Issues related to urban planning are situated in the Space and Economy administration, which in turn is divided into 12 different departments (Ibid). The spatial planning and sustainability department employs 600 people, and can therefore be regarded as the largest design agency in Europe (City of public spaces (City of Amsterdam, 2020e). The different departments regularly consult each other and take advantage of their respective expertise (Ibid). The city government - tives to be more powerful and impactful. They even intend to adopt a decision-making process where residents can completely surpass the municipal government in some - coming attitude to grassroot movements and public participation, a tradition which has

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 24 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

The governance structure of Amsterdam has traditionally involved a complex combi- nation of market forces, cultural movements and government interventions (Korthals Altes, 2019; Borra and Urhahn, 2020). These complex collaboration partnerships are increase inter-municipal collaboration, and implemented policies to support the forma- tion of partnerships between stakeholders from different municipalities. As a result, over a thousand different inter-city cooperation organizations were created in a relatively short time, involving many different public and private actors. This voluntary co- to create seven (later growing to eight) formal city-regions, with an obligation to collab- 2017). However, the top-down city-region approach, which never became popular in the eyes of the general public, was formally abolished in 2014, giving power back to the municipalities and provinces (Ibid).

expanding in a polycentric fashion, with many of the old townships attracting business- - peripheral nodes. This short-lived agenda changed again in 2003, when the municipality changed their perspective, and started seeing Amsterdam as a central node in a polycentric urban area (Ibid). Amsterdam was no longer seen as competing with its neighbouring Dutch cities, but with other European metropolises, so the focus shifted and workers. The city now started strengthening its peripheral nodes into full centers to create an attractive, continuous, polycentric metropolitan region.

- ance model in a more experimental direction (Savini, 2017b). To save money through - ible private developments over large-scale, public interventions. This new, so-called Neighbourhood approach, has increased the decentralization of power within Amster- dam, and encouraged more locally based urban developments. This approach has number of new dwellings being constructed in the city between 2011 and 2015 (Ibid). Contrary to many other cities undergoing a process of neoliberalisation of their planning policies, Amsterdam has still maintained ownership of almost all the land in the - ket value of land prices in the city (Ibid).

and work on local issues in their respective areas. Their freedom has become some- what limited after a 2014 reform reduced their independence to carry out tasks given to them by the municipality (Ibid). The city district committees function as the main link between the districts and the municipality (City of Amsterdam, 2020g). They work on the design of streets, squares, green spaces, waste collection and social work. As create annual independent area plans that involve the participation of residents, business communities and organisations (Ibid). This approach includes key placemaking concepts that encourage residents, entrepreneurs and organisations to take an active role in determining what aspects of the area are important, what ideas and initiatives are important, and how the area should be developed (City of Amsterdam, 2020h). In other words, the area-based Neighbourhood approach aims at locally-based urban development through public participation and place-narratives.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 25 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

5.3 Placemaking in Amsterdam

The City of Amsterdam works with placemaking approaches and ideals in a variety of ways. They have adopted an approach of “planning by invitation”, instead of directly controlling its citizens and companies (Savini, 2017a). The model means that the city urbanism and private initiatives. An example of this can be seen in how the municipality has been transforming urban wastelands and public green spaces through urban farming initiatives, with the goal of increasing the health, education, social cohesion and greening of the city (Spierings et al., 2018). This development is further spurred active citizen participation (Ibid).

The municipality is also monitoring social changes in the city, and responding to changes in citizen needs and wishes. For example, when citizen demands for social restaurants, and prioritized space for pedestrians over cars (Karssenberg and Laven, 2017). The citizens went even further and started to place benches and to install small gardens on their doorstep. This development was supported by the authorities, who helped citizens remove walls between neighbouring gardens, leading to approximately 80 % of informal social interaction between neighbours to take place in these hybrid zones (Ibid). In addition to working with placemaking approaches in various developments and policies, the city government has included several placemaking ideals in their urban development goals. Examples can be seen in their Pleasant neighbourhoods, liveable city -plan, which states that they will work with local residents to develop neighbourhoods according to their wishes, as well as prioritize public transportation and bicycle infrastructure, and work on social equality and accessibility for everyone (City of Amsterdam, 2020n). Despite these placemaking efforts, the city does not mention the word placemaking in any of their policy documents or on their website. The - with placemaking ideals and approaches as an overarching ideal and goal throughout

Participatory policies Citizens are welcome to speak at city council meetings, address council members of Amsterdam, 2020i). In addition to these reactive measures, the municipality offers methods include participation evenings and neighbourhood meetings, where issues of relevance for the neighbourhood in question are discussed with the citizens (City of approach prioritizes “bottom-linked” initiatives, where informal citizens and citizen groups cooperate with more formal institutions, such as housing associations, to have their voices heard (Hoekstra and Dahlvik, 2018). Through interviews with planners in Amsterdam, Niitamo (2020) found that interacting with citizens was seen as a natural a problem. Richards (2016) recognizes events as an important tool used to spur placemaking initiatives. The city has also organized an event, Amsterdammers, Make Your City! - sterdam, 2020o). However, while the municipality is facilitating public participation processes in residential areas, the city does not include citizens as stakeholders, unless they already live in the area (Dembski, 2013). For newly built areas, or redevelopments of industrial areas into residential areas, this means that the city does not include the perspectives and narratives of the future citizens in the planning process.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 26 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Cycling and transportation and Laven, 2017). This success can be attributed to many different social, geographi- businesses and research institutes to gather data on mobility in the city (City of Am- sterdam, 2020k). They use this data for example to increase accessibility for travellers to all Amsterdam residents in order to boost initiatives for private mobility-related inno- for trips within Amsterdam, with a 35 % share of all trips made in 2017 (Nello-Deakin and Nikolaeva, 2020). 25 % of trips in the same year were made with private cars, 23 % by walking and 16 % by public transportation (Ibid). Cycling has been increasing in investments and cycling policies (Ibid). However, it is also important to note that Am- sterdam has a great geographical starting point for developing this infrastructure, with of the Amsterdam lifestyle.

Amsterdam also has a large public transportation system, consisting of a metro, regional trains, trams, buses and ferries. Responsibility for planning and implementing public transportation systems lies with the regional authorities, while the municipality The public transportation system is heavily subsidised, with a majority of their opera- tional costs being covered by subsidies from the national government (Hirschhorn et has become the most popular form of transportation in the city (Ibid). However, public transportation has also been a major factor in making the decrease in car ownership possible, steadily taking over the share of motorised trips from privately owned vehicles (Ibid).

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 27 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The cases of Pakhuis de Zwijger and Lola Lik

2016). Based in an old refrigerated warehouse (Fig. 12), the organization hosts several hundred events per year with the goal of linking creative industries together with urban development professionals through interdisciplinary collabo- been that of one actor among others or as a node in a network of actors. While the adaptive reuse of the industrial site was initially made possible by the municipality, the idea and implementation for the cultural organization stemmed from a grassroots initiative, and the municipality has had more of a supporting/ participating role in the various events, debates and research initiatives taking place there. A collaboration between Pakhuis de Zwijger, the City of Amster- dam, Amsterdam Economic Board, Waag Society and Kennisland played a key role in Amsterdam winning the EU Innovation Capital Award 2016-2017 (Project for Public Spaces, 2007). Pakhuis de Zwijger also hosted the 2017 Placemaking Week conference. Another example of Amsterdam creating public spaces in a similar, bottom-linked fashion is the adaptive reuse project of an empty prison complex, Lola Lik. Since crime rates had fallen so low, the need for prisons decreased and the empty complex was turned into an open-for-all creative cultural hub with the ambition of improving the integration and networking of newly arrived immigrants in Amsterdam (Ibid). The placement of these cultural hubs also implied that the municipality is actively forming its own policy of increasing accessibility to art and culture and strengthening neighbourhood ties throughout the city (City of Amsterdam, 2020l)

Fig.12 Pakhuis de Zwijger. The cultural centre is located in an old refridgerated warehouse. (Pakhuis de Zwijger)

- ties are willing to take on a follower-dominant leadership role in placemaking processes, allowing other actors to step up and manage decision-making processes. While both places have been mainly managed and maintained by other actors, the local authorities have maintained an active part of the initiatives by participating in their events and supporting their networking initiatives. These factors indicate that the municipality

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 28 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Plein 40-45

The municipality of Amsterdam uses external consultants to facilitate placema- the Plein 40-45 square in one of the most diverse districts of Amsterdam. The facilitate a workshop to bring together local stakeholders to develop strategies to improve the square (Project for Public Spaces, 2010). The workshop brought together many stakeholders that had not previously met each other, including local government representatives and a diverse group of citizens. This workshop led to many initiatives that were tried, and a future collaboration between the stakeholders was established. The square was eventually developed into a market (Fig. 13 employees developed sketches to visualize possible activities on the square, their role in the project focused on the implementation phase, while the various stakeholders involved with the project came up with the design ideas (Ibid).

Fig.13 Plein 40-45. The square houses a popular ethnic market, with vendors selling products from their countries of origin. (Lodewijk van Es, 2015)

The case of Plein 40-45 indicates that the municipality is, in some cases, willing to involve external consultants to facilitate the public participation process. This supports the notion that Amsterdam is actively changing its governance structure to become more - This supporting role of the city-employed architects and designers resonates with Re-

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 29 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of NDSM-Wharf

- (Lindner and Meissner, 2014). A clear indication of this can be seen in the way the city eventually formalized various squatter movement efforts to establish an experimental cultural hub in the NDSM-wharf in the Amsterdam North district. The area was experiencing high unemployment rates and high building-vacancy - pyards in the world, the wharf (Fig. 14) has been redeveloped into a gathering place for creative industries, hosting several hundred artists, designers, architects, private enterprises and various events (NDSM, 2020a). While the wharf has an open character, with free public access to it, it is owned by a private real estate developer, and maintained by the NDSM foundation (NDSM, 2020b). This illustrates another case of the municipality externalizing placemaking processes to private actors. While the city government embraces these kinds of grassroot areas, the municipality also leaves the maintenance responsibilities to other stakeholders, further emphasizing their passive, observing role in the process. homes in the area, the NDSM foundation has raised concerns that they are of the area in the post-redevelopment phase (Ibid).

Fig.14 NDSM-Wharf. The wharf is today a popular cultural hot spot, and various art installations. (Venetia Rainey, 2018)

Based on the NDSM wharf case, the municipality is not actively involved in the redevel- follower-dominant leadership role in the initial design phase of the wharf, they changed - city is working with their own policies of designing the city together with citizens, despite having their own strategic interests at stake. While the formalization and further this is a valid and useful strategy for placemaking. They note that a post-development phase formalization of DIY urbanism efforts can help to sustain long-term placemaking efforts and support active stakeholder involvement.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 30 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Zuidas

- into a high-density, mixed-use neighborhood (Majoor, 2009). The project features two slightly contradicting visions for the area. The national government, which owns most of the infrastructure, was initially interested in increasing the center (Ibid). The local business communities embraced this approach, pushing mixed-use developments with a variety of functions (Ibid; City of Amsterdam, 2020m). To solve these contradictions, and create a car-free neighbourhood character for the site, large infrastructure networks were designed to be hidden in a tunnel under the district (Fig. 15 actors were given a bigger role in the proposed infrastructure developments - tional government, to adopt a more neoliberal approach in the development of the area (Ibid).

Fig.15 The proposed infrastructure tunnel in Zuidas. As of 2020, the ambitious proposal is yet to be built. (Friends in Real Estate, 2010)

The neoliberal, business-driven Zuidas project illustrates that the municipality does not combine their goals and ideas with business stakeholders. This is in stark contrast to the way the city plans inhabited districts. In line with the ideas of Pierce et al. (2011), stakeholder agendas. The Zuidas case also indicates an inter-governmental relationship, where the municipality is the strongest actor in urban development projects and

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 31 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Buiksloterham

Buiksloterham is an old industrial area located in the Amsterdam-Noord district. - - a mixed-use urban area was achieved organically and gradually through laws and interactive governance interventions (Ibid). The main stakeholders at the coalition between the municipality and the Amsterdam-Noord city district. A major challenge with the organic transformation was the coexistence of heavy industries and residents over the transition-period. Although the municipality rarely includes future inhabitants as stakeholders in the planning process of new and self-build houses served as a platform for future residents to design their own neighbourhood, and to prototype various DIY urbanism initiatives (Bouw, a neighbourhood vision for Buiksloterham, and published a document including all of their ideas and proposals (Meijer, 2019). This document is not meant to be a competing master plan for the area, but a group of ideas to be used by resear- and wishes (Ibid). While it is still in development, the area is already known for being a living laboratory for circular economy initiatives and DIY urbanism (Fig. 16) (Bouw, 2018).

Fig.16 Café de Ceuvel. The café, which is built from recycled materials, has become a popular hang-out spot for locals. (Café de Ceuvel)

The Buiksloterham case implies that the municipality is using self-build houses as an alternative way to engage future citizens in the planning process. This view is also emphasized by Savini (2017a), who argues that the municipality has used a similar approach in the newly built IJBurg district. The municipality took over responsibilities from the local city district in the planning of Buiksloterham. This illustrates how the municipality is ready to use their authority to promote their own interests in developing more housing, mixed-use neighborhoods and a continuous urban fabric for the city. - - -

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 32 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Table 1. from Amsterdam.

Amsterdammers Make Your City!

Table 1 - ments in their respective neighbourhoods. The municipality does, however, remain the strongest individual actor in the development of the city. The municipality has adopted a predominantly follower-dominant and bottom-linked leadership style, where situated somewhere between what the Project for Public Spaces (2018) call place-sensitive and truly place-led.

The municipality tends to formalize DIY urbanism efforts that support their own agenda. Their main tools to catalyse placemaking initiatives is extensive research and events and competitions. While public participation is widely facilitated through traditional political structures, future inhabitants are mainly involved in the form of zoning for self-build houses.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 33 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

6. Case Study of Berlin

Fig.17 Berlin on a satellite image of Western Europe. (Google Earth, the author) 6.1 Berlin in Context

Berlin, the capital and most populous city of Germany, has an urban population of over 3,5 million inhabitants (United Nations, 2018). The city, which is also a federal state, is located in the eastern part of Germany by the banks of the river Spree. Berlin has a Berlin, 2020a). The city is historically known for playing a key role in both World Wars, and for the division of the city between West Germany and East Germany during the time after World War II until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (Dellenbaugh, 2020). While the east-west division is still visible in some socio-economic aspects, the overall quality of life in the city is now consistently ranked among the best in the world (Barrett, 2015; Locke, 2019; Zapata, 2020). Today, Berlin is known as a diverse cultural hub that attracts high-skilled workers and creative industries due to its vibrant urban life, buzzing nightlife and popular green areas (Fig. 18) (Lange et al., 2008).

Fig.18 Görlitzer Park. One example of many popular parks in Berlin, which features a variety of lively green spaces throughout the city. (City of Berlin)

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 34 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Berlin has a polycentric city structure with a star-shaped urban pattern following the building typology is shaped by the shifts in its historical phases and subsequent plan- German Republic, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, East and West Germany, part of the city during World War II bombings, the Cold War division of the city that part of the city still features a more Stalinist, neoclassical architecture style, whereas the western part is predominantly modernist. The different planning styles in the two halves of the city can be seen in the retrospectively combined general structure plans from 1989 (Fig. 19).

Fig.19 The 1989 General Structure Plan has been retrospectively combined, making it easy to compare standards in East and West Berlin. (City of Berlin)

Berlin has a typical central European temperate climate, with generally mild winters good foundation for cycling. Infrastructure investment in recent decades has led to a 40 % increase in cycling between 2004 and 2012, comprising a 15 % share of all trips within the city (City of Berlin, 2015a). Berlin has a long history of including comprehen- introduced in the Jansen Plan of 1910, with a large part of its rings of forests, parks and gardens with radial green corridors between them still visible in the city structure (City - es, such as parks, forests, water and farmland (City of Berlin, 2020c). These largely within the rings, while partially combating urban sprawl and car-centred suburbanisa- tion processes from occurring in the outer rings.

but the city managed to attract creative industries during this period (Lange et al., network-creator and various policies to encourage cultural activity in the city (Ibid). - ulation density, and population that has remained young due to the large share of rent-controlled dwellings in the city (Ibid; Lanzl, 2009). The above-mentioned factors have led to the city being a global hotspot for cultural, social and political movements, with many such phenomena either starting or spreading from the city (Rooney, 2018). Examples include various squatter movements, environmental movements, a vibrant scene.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 35 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

6.2 Urban Governance of Berlin

is divided into four different levels (Fig. 20). The Federal Government stipulates general principles and objectives for spatial planning through guidelines (Ibid). The state governments, or Länder, mediate between the regional and the federal level, and issue statewide development plans (Ibid). Regional level planning varies greatly between different states in Germany, with a general focus on matters related to infrastructure planning is integrated with the neighboring state of Brandenburg (Berlin-Brandenburg, 2020). The municipalities create more detailed plans with Zoning plans and Building and Construction plans according to the regulations set by the Federal Building Code Borough Councils are responsible for detailed planning on a neighbourhood level. All four planning levels have to take into consideration the requirements and conditions of the other levels in accord- ance with the Mutual feedback principle (Ibid).

Fig.20 The Governance structure of Berlin. (The author)

As a city-state, the highest governing body in Berlin is the Berlin City Council, with the is working with issues related to urban planning on a citywide scale under the Urban Development Administration, which is responsible for planning, transport, housing and development (Ibid). Berlin has another level of government, since the city is divided into 12 different boroughs. These borough councils, the representatives of which are elected through direct elections, have their own urban development administrations (Ibid). However, the autonomy of these boroughs in planning matters is restricted by the citywide Land Use Plan created by the City Council (City of Berlin, 2015b). Based City Council only intervenes in detailed plans made by the boroughs if they are of exceptional importance to the entire city. They normally only comment on their com- patibility with the Land Use Plan (Ibid).

- tion of Germany (and Berlin) in 1990 are characterized by neoliberal planning policies in megaprojects, such as Potsdamer Platz (Fig. 21) (Falahat and Madanipour, 2019). Combined with the pre-existing socio-economic split between the two halves of the - - ideals led to increased monitoring and data gathering by the municipality at more local, neighborhood levels (Ibid). These Neighborhood Management efforts were formalized federally in 1999 with the Social City program (Ibid). The goal of this program is to support disadvantaged neighborhoods, stabilize them, and strengthen their social cohe- - ing access to education, public spaces and social infrastructure. The interests of the local residents are represented by the neighborhood council, who make decisions on how to use money from the neighborhood fund, with project funding ranging from 1,500 the EU (ERDF), the German Federal Government, and the Berlin Senate (Ibid).

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 36 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Fig.21 Potsdamer Platz. The large-scale, business centred plaza marks a neoliberal shift in the reunited city's planning agenda. (Eventlokale)

In addition to decentralizing some of the planning power to its boroughs and working with Neighborhood Management in disadvantaged areas, Berlin also works with a place-based governance model in economic matters. The city divides its regions into different industries together with focal points for infrastructure, research and development (Ibid). These different government levels and various socio-economic spatial clusters make for a complex governance model. However, it also enables more local of bottom-up initiatives and grassroots movements (Kemp et al., 2015). Berlin has for and limited public spending. While Berlin still aims to facilitate and encourage public participation, their participatory policies currently favor formally organized participation

the national government, compared to traditional cities. This also means that regional planning is limited to collaboration with the neighbouring state of Brandenburg. Since the city is also divided into twelve democratically elected city districts, the most relevant inter-governmental power-relationship for urban planning occurs within the city itself.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 37 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

6.3 Placemaking in Berlin

- - focus on promoting social mix and distinct neighbourhood characters. Their strategy also allows both private and public stakeholders to design their surroundings in collaboration with one another (Ibid). These values and strategies are also present in the - spaces (City of Berlin, 2020h). The city also aims to maintain short distances between issues, but these values and approaches are instead spread out throughout the plan- programme, in which the city employs people to facilitate placemaking processes in - ternal placemaking experts.

Participatory policies structure and planning policies. The process of modifying a land use plan in Berlin draft of the proposal is presented to the public for discussions and consultations (City their own proposals and provide comments, which will be considered for the next revi- sion of the draft (City of Berlin, 2020f). In the second phase of public participation, the phase, as well as a written statement and an environmental impact assessment (Ibid). submitted to the City Council for parliamentary discussion (City of Berlin, 2020e).

In addition to these classical political participation tools, Berlin applies a number of tools and participatory instruments to improve civic participation in the planning process (Kemp et al., 2015). The municipality published a 340-page handbook for the interest groups to participate in the planning process, while also suggesting methods approach to urban governance (Ibid).

The City Government has also introduced an electronic platform, meinBerlin, to facilitate digital participation processes (Singh and Christmann, 2020). The platform can be used freely by government administrations, as well as by local initiatives and organ- Noise Action Plan, in which citizens can report noisy areas on an interactive map (Ibid). Gulsrud et al. (2018) recognizes visualization as an important factor in community engagement. Another example of a visual method that Berlin uses to facilitate public participation is the Environment Atlas, an information system to provide open and easy access to ecological planning data for anyone who is interested in contributing to the access to planning data accelerates the planning process, legitimizes decision-making and makes it more transparent, while improving collaboration with the private sector (Ibid).

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 38 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Cycling and transportation Walking is the most commonly used means of transportation for trips within Berlin, aims at building on more sustainable forms of transportation, such as walking, cycling, public transportation and ride-sharing (City of Berlin, 2020i). The Mobility Act was created in 2017 by a coalition involving the City Government and the boroughs, as well Association and Friends of the Earth Germany (Ibid). The city works with developing sustainable transportation solutions with several placemaking approaches. In addition to involving various actors in the Mobility Act, the city regularly consults its citizens on infrastructure developments, and uses temporary installations and expansions of cycle lanes (Fig. 22) to test what the citizens like and dislike (City of Berlin, 2020j). government aims at creating more pleasant urban environments (City of Berlin, 2020k). neighbourhoods (Fig. 23-24), with roads instead being used for example as temporary play streets for children (Ibid). Berlin is also planning a new type of public space called - duced speeds for motor vehicles (City of Berlin, 2020l). Through extensive surveys and dialogues with citizens during trial periods, the city found that these encounter zones improve road safety, reduce noise pollution and improve the perceived quality of the

Fig.22 Temporary cycle-lane in Berlin. The city has been using temporary experiments like this to try out solutions in practice. (Broytman/SenUVK)

Fig.23-24 Before (left) and after (right) comparison of a pedestranised street in Berlin. (Ralf Rühmeier, 2019)

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 39 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Himmelbeet Urban Garden

Berlin has a long history of using vacant plots of land for gardening. The popula- a new peak due to increased climate awareness (Ambrose and Derks, 2020). to embracing them, viewing them as a cost-effective alternative to maintaining Himmelbeet (Fig. 25), a community garden in the borough of Mitte, north-western Berlin. The project was initiated in 2012 by local artists and shop owners who initially wanted to utilize a vacant parking lot on top of a shopping centre (Karge, 2018). the borough of Mitte provided the citizens with another site on publicly owned land (Ibid). The borough of Mitte stayed on to serve as an intermediary between - mately 30 people of diverse backgrounds, some with previous experiences of similar projects (Ibid). As a community garden initiative on such a scale was not seen as having wider implications for the city of Berlin, the municipality did not get involved with the project in the beginning. The borough of Mitte was initially expressed an interest in building a new training centre in the area (Himmelbeet, 2020). This resulted in the municipality getting slightly involved in the issue, telling the district authorities to listen to the needs of all the user groups when planning for the future use of the area (Ibid). After a coexistence of the football organization and the community farmers in the same location was deemed to parties, it was decided that a new location must be found for the group of gardeners. Activities are currently being allowed to continue at Himmelbeet until the construction of the training ground starts, and the district council has started (by location together with the gardeners (Ibid).

Fig.25 Himmelbeet Community Garden. The urban garden has brought people from different backgrounds together. (Rosa Medea, 2018)

The case of Himmelbeet shows how much power the municipality of Berlin can hold over the boroughs. It indicates that the City Government is willing to use their authority placemaking agenda. The Himmelbeet case also highlights how the local authorities let private actors (both the football organization and the gardeners) develop and maintain open spaces quite freely, with the authorities focusing on general strategies instead of design issues. As both the local borough and the municipality were functioning mainly as consultants in bureaucratic issues, while leaving the design, implementation and maintenance to the private actors, their leadership role can be interpreted as Collinge (2018) categorization of governance approaches, they can be argued to fall under the truly place-led approach.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 40 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Güterbahnhof Moabit

- zation, Güterbahnhof Moabit (Fig. 26), is a public park, playground, community garden and arts hub (Bain and Landau, 2019). Moabit, an old manufacturing and transportation area with a large immigrant population, is located in the borough - me, a plot of industrial railway land was redeveloped into a public open space explicitly listed as key actors and with them being thoroughly involved in the design phase of the project. Public participation was facilitated through brains- torming events with local residents, as well as having a single “citizen repre- sentative” as part of the project team, and regularly consulting citizens through Neighbourhood Management programme also means that the municipality, as well as the borough council, took a very passive role throughout the process, generally acting as a supervisor and consultant in such projects (Falahat and Madanipour, 2019). However, in their case study of the Güterbahnhof Moabit, Bain and Landau (2019) found that the municipality predetermined the design the process. The local administrators disappeared almost completely during the post-occupancy phase of the redevelopment, indirectly externalising the management and continued development of the site to an art collective housed in the site (Ibid). The park, which is still publicly owned, is today praised for being a popular recreational area, as well as contributing to the social cohesion of a passive role in the post-occupancy phase has led to problems with maintenance and security (Ibid).

Fig.26 Güterbahnhof Moabit. The old industrial site is today a lively park, with an art centre and a bar. (ZKU)

The Güterbahnhof Moabit case shows how local administrators work with their Neigh- bourhood Management programme in practice. Their role in the process indicates that in projects where they are explicitly meant to have a supporting, follower-dominant (2018) Place-sensitive approach. However, the design park itself was designed in a follower-dominant, non-hierarchical manner. As Peters and Pierre (2012) point out, issues with accountability and clear boundaries of responsibility between stakeholders is a common challenge in non-hierarchical urban development projects. Their post-occupancy disappearance illustrates how they used the placemaking ideals of their Neigh- bourhood Management programme to externalize the maintenance of public spaces to private actors. This unclear role commonly assigned to artists placemaking processes is criticized by both Redaelli (2016) and Bain and Landau (2019).

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 41 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Strandbar Mitte

Strandbar Mitte (Fig. 27 - and Ambler, 2010). The beach bar started as a temporary occupation of an underused space by the waterfront next to a park and an adjoining theatre. The bar, which kept its gates open and sun chairs accessible to everybody regardless of whether or not they were customers, attracted a lot of visitors especially from the adjoining theatre (Ibid). The beach bar quickly grew in popularity, spar- king a wider movement in Berlin, with more than 60 new city beaches opening throughout the city in the following decade (Ibid). This development did not go unnoticed by the city government, who decided to incorporate the privately-run, open-access beach into the plans for the park and its neighbourhood. This in- corporation generated political opposition, with some local borough politicians expressing concern about the use of public space for a private initiative, as well as the potential noise and garbage pollution to the surrounding areas (Ibid). create new, lively areas meant that the city government allowed the activities to continue, albeit under the condition that they adapt and adjust their activities to

Fig.27 Strandbar Mitte. The previously underused space has been turned into a popular hangout spot with open access to anyone. (Bernd Schönberger)

The Strandbar Mitte case illustrates how grassroots movements can have a lasting - nicipality sometimes not getting involved after a private initiative has created a lasting - trol the activities in retrospect indicate that they prefer to formalize these initiatives and include them in the long-term plans for the neighbourhood, and the city. This formalization of DIY urbanism efforts is criticized by some (Project for Public Spaces, 2018) for counteracting community engagement, and leading to placemaking being used as - malization can play a vital role in sustaining the placemaking agenda in the long-term, central location. For the inter-governmental relations within the city, this is another example of the municipality exercising its power over the boroughs. After the local authorities saw a lot of potential in the project and decided to support it, they adopted host. Since the project also sparked a wider movement throughout the city without the

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 42 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Tempelhof Field

- vate and utilize open spaces on a wide scale throughout the city (Colomb, 2012). open spaces and sees temporary use of open spaces as an opportunity to boost primary interest in these temporary projects is economic rather than experimental, some of the projects managed to gather enough support from the citizens to transformed into a public park (Fig. 28 airport came to an end in 2008, after which it was reclaimed by the city of Berlin and reopened as a public park in 2010 (Fahey, 2015). Despite this, the city did not view the site as a large park in their long-term plans for the site, and wanted - - yers, picnickers, joggers, urban gardeners and yoga enthusiasts, among others, leading to a lot of opposition to the proposed developments (Ibid). Eventually, a referendum was held by the borough of Tempelhof-Schöneberg, with a majority events and serves an important biodiversity function.

Fig.28 Tempelhof Field. The old airport is today Berlin's largest park, attracting a wide range of visitors, who engage in a variety of activities there. (Stephannie Braconnier, 2019)

take a more authoritarian leadership role in the project, it eventually ended up as a supporting stakeholder. This approach, where the municipality had an initial top-down bottom-linked strategy (Baker and Mehmood, 2015). As the eventual outcome of the park has become designed in a DIY urbanism fashion, with several actors involved and truly place-led approach (Project for Public Spaces, 2018), despite their initial agenda. Collinge and Gibney (2010) call the intelligent host.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 43 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Table 2. The Neighbourhood Management program can be seen as an explicit “placemaking team”, built for each district separately. Other from Berlin. Where placemaking is than that, no specific teams or individual experts. The placemaking approach runs through the planning department as an situated overarching ideal.

Governance structure Decentralized governance structure. Boroughs as separate entities, elected by direct elections. Municipality the strongest actor.

The local authorities generally take on a more follower-dominant, supporting role in placemaking processes (e.g. Himmelbeet case), while they sometimes try to use their authority in a more top-down manner, they might change approaches fluidly during a Leadership roles project (e.g. Tempelhof case). The authorities also generally disappear in the post-occupancy phase, externalizing maintenance costs to the site’s users (e.g. Güterbahnhof Moabit case and Tempelhof case).

Placemaking governance Governance approach generally truly place-led. approach

Research: gathering data (open source, e.g. Environmental Atlas)

Placemaking tools Experiments: testing out temporary solutions (e.g. temporary cycling lanes)

Neighbourhood Management Program set up in disadvantaged neighbourhoods

DIY urbanism used extensively to activate spaces and gather interest. Efforts are usually formalized and worked in to DIY Urbanism masterplans.

Local referendums can be held on special matters (e.g. Tempelhof)

Various stakeholders involved throughout the planning process.

Public participation Online surveys and a platform (MeinBerlin) for filing complaints and suggestions

An extensive handbook made for local authorities with guidelines on how to facilitate participation

Table 2, Berlin works with placemaking processes with city applies a Neighbourhood Management program in certain disadvantaged areas. - tralized governance structure and division into boroughs strives to include various stakeholders in the planning projects through a place-based approach. Despite sometimes using, or trying to use, a more authoritarian leadership style to push through their own agendas, the municipality generally takes on a follower-dominant leadership role and a truly place-led governance approach in placemaking processes.

The municipality is open to DIY urbanism projects, viewing them as a cost-effective alternative to maintaining temporary urban spaces. While the most popular of these DIY efforts often results in formalized master plans, the municipality is also keen to maintain their free and open access. The two main placemaking tools used by the municipality are research and experimenting with temporary solutions. Public partici- surveys used for support. Local referendums can also be held for matters of exceptional importance.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 44 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

7. Case Study of Copenhagen

Fig. 29 Amsterdam on a satellite image of Western Europe. (Google Earth, the Author) 7.1 Copenhagen in Context

Copenhagen, the capital and most populous city of Denmark, has an urban population of over 1,3 million people (United Nations, 2018). The city is located by the strait of Øresund, on the east coast of Zealand island, expanding onto Amager island. The mainland Europe, making the city a natural meeting point for different cultures. The Øresund bridge connects Copenhagen to Malmö in Sweden by both rail and road. Its airport, Kastrup, is the busiest in the Nordic countries (Statista, 2020), and the city is connected to mainland Europe by both rail and road access to Germany. Today, of attractive public spaces and an overall high quality of life (Gehl et. al, 2008; Sick Nielsen et al., 2013; Koglin, 2015).

Copenhagen represents a typical structure for European cities. It initially grew with- - val street pattern, while the outer areas have more modern street patterns (Gehl and Gemzøe, 2001). The building typology in Copenhagen is marked by a mixture of neoclassical and modern architecture (City of Copenhagen, 2017). The urban fabric features green spaces in a variety of sizes, forms and functions. Its modern and relatively system, and the city is praised for its functional and well-used bicycle infrastructure. conditions for pedestrians (Gehl et. al, 2008). Following the 1962 success of pedes- Strøget (Fig. 30), the city started converting more of their car-dominated streets for pedestrians and cyclists. Between 1962 and 2000, the total area of pedestrianized streets in Copenhagen grew from 15,800 m2 to 99,780 m2 (Gehl and Gemzøe, 2001).

Fig. 30 Strøget. The success of pedestrianising the main street in downtown Copenhagen sparked a wider agenda of car- free zones. (Erik Hageman)

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 45 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

pedestrians Prioritising pedestrians and cyclists have led to an increase in the use of public spaces in the city, resulting in a buzzing urban life. Today, Copenhagen is full of lively squares, streets and parks, with various commercial and leisure activities. This development became evident through studies conducted in 1968, 1985, 1995 and 2005 about the changes in the spaces of the city (Gehl et. al, 2008). Copenha- multiple decades, deepening the understanding of changes in urban life and inspiring many other cities to follow suit (Ibid). These kinds of studies have been expanded and conducted more frequently and extensively since 2010 (City of Copenhagen, 2020a).

by its famous Finger Plan from 1947. The Finger Plan was a response to rapid urban growth in a time when private car ownership was still rare and public transportation relatively undeveloped, thus limiting the potential for urban sprawl (Knowles, 2012). Fig. 31). Another important aspect providing the city with agricultural and recreational green spaces (Ibid). The 1947 ur- by the Danish Town and Planning Institute (Caspersen et al., 2013). This early example undergone in past decades.

Fig. 31 The 1947 Finger Plan. The infrastructure corridors and urbanized areas of Copenhagen form a hand on a map. (Danish Design Review)

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 46 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

7.2 Urban Governance of Copenhagen

Land use planning in Denmark is divided into four different levels: national, regional, municipal and local. The national government is responsible for national planning, regional planning is facilitated through various collaboration projects, and municipalities make plans on a municipal and a more local level (Fig. 32). The planning law divides the responsibilities between these actors. The national government decides on general guidelines, while it is up to the municipalities to interpret these through physical planning in the city plans and local plans. Regional development takes place through collaborative projects between different municipalities, and their key stakeholders (City of Copenhagen, 2020b). The division of responsibility in Danish spatial planning is strongly decentralized, with public involvement being integrated into all levels of the planning process (Danish Nature Agency, 2012).

Fig. 32 The Governance Struc- ture of Copenhagen.

The Municipality of Copenhagen is governed through an intermediate government system, with the City Council acting as the supreme body. The Financial Committee, as well as six standing committees, are responsible for their respective subject areas, and operate under the City Council (City of Copenhagen, 2018). Each of these standing committees is led by a mayor, meaning that Copenhagen has six mayors, as well as the responsibility of the Technical and Environmental Administration (Ibid). The Techni- cal and Environmental Administration is divided into four service areas: city operations, city physical appearance, city use, and city development. Despite the administration being divided into these service areas, Copenhagen has an integrated planning organization, with strong collaboration between different planning professions, such as

For further insights on how Copenhagen has been shaped by its governance structure, it is important to understand the changes to this structure and the underlying political by a Social Democratic agenda, where the construction of a welfare state was seen as a strong national priority. At the time, the Danish government had a strong ideology of redistributing both wealth and population more evenly throughout the country. This means that the growth of Copenhagen was actively counteracted through national, regional and municipal measures (Hansen et al., 2001). While the 1947 Finger Plan was initiated by a private organization and gathered support due to its perceived ben- these responsibilities. The secretariat that was responsible for implementing the plans was closed shortly after its publication, and a new planning act was passed in 1949 (Caspersen et al., 2013). This law made it possible to manage urbanization through master plans, but this power was in reality very limited due to the weak planning authorities of the time (Ibid). The increasing number of private cars meant that urban - of Copenhagen had begun to deteriorate due to decades of controlled suburbanization policies driving wealthy families to the outer parts of the city (Majoor, 2008). This led the national government to review its policies concerning the capital, shifting the agen- changed from one city among many other Danish cities, to the driver of growth for the

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 47 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

a set of neoliberal planning agendas were introduced (Majoor, 2008). Public property was now being sold to stimulate development. Perhaps most notable of these actions was the sale of the Ørestad area to private developers in order to fund the construction increased openness of the planning process marked a shift from urban government to urban governance (Hansen et al., 2001).

present-day situation of a strongly decentralized and open planning process. Today, Copenhagen is governed through complex collaborative partnerships, with various public and private stakeholders involved throughout the planning process. While the openness of the planning process has attracted some criticism, especially regarding the privatization of public property, it has also greatly increased public participation and the possibility for average citizens to prompt change in their neighborhoods. Copen- twelve Local Committees. These committees represent the interests of their respective districts in the planning process and develop district plans together with citizens, external partners and the Financial Committee of Copenhagen (City of Copenhagen, 2020c). They are responsible for consulting the municipality on issues that are of signif- icant nature to their districts. The municipality likewise has an obligation to involve the local committees before reaching a political decision on matters which are particularly important to the districts (Copenhagen Local Committees, 2020a). Despite the political - nary citizens with interests in the neighborhood. To become a member of a local committee, one has to be nominated by a registered organization with local activities in the district (City of Copenhagen, 2020d). The nominating organization could for example be a local sports club, a neighborhood association or a local business.

- decisions against the will of citizens. The local committees can also achieve direct, - tended to improve activities within democracy, culture and networking in the district. - ual citizens or organizations (Copenhagen Local Committees, 2020b).

Despite its decentralized governance structure, the national government of Denmark strategic areas. In 2007, the national government developed a cycling strategy, with the aim of improving cycling conditions throughout the country (Sick Nielsen et al., 2013). It is, however, up to the municipalities to implement these policies, even maintaining autonomy over inter-city transportation networks (Ibid).

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 48 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

7.3. Placemaking in Copenhagen

Despite often being cited as one of the most prominent cities in the placemaking scene, as well as being the home city and base of operations for world-renowned pioneer placemaker Jan Gehl, Copenhagen does not mention the word placemaking in any of extensive policies and guidelines that resonate with the key ideals of the placemaking approach. The municipal plan of Copenhagen states that the city prioritises places to offer opportunities for random encounters across social and cultural groups, and to

The municipality cannot – and must not – do all the work. We will ensure a good framework so that residents, businesses, volunteers and organisations can – and will do as much as possible to themselves. They must be able to create, contrib- (Ibid, p.8)

- ance structure as a whole, whereas it can be interpreted as a placemaking approach for the year 2025 (City of Copenhagen, 2015b). Including placemaking approaches throughout their integrated planning department, without mentioning the word in any publications, hints at the existence of a department-wide policy of placemaking ideals, - gen aims at setting a good example for other cities in creating a liveable city. In their vision for 2025, they state the following:

Copenhagen is a nice, well-planned city – perhaps a little bit too nice and pre- dictable. Naturally, we must play to our strengths and by 2025 we want to see Copenhagen in the premier league of vibrant cities that act as global leaders; a and allows for individual differences. This will require more than traditional planning. It will require a radical rethinking of the nature of urban development. The that everybody works together to build the city we want. As the capital, Copenha- gen must interact positively with other towns and cities – not only in the region, but throughout the country and the world. (City of Copenhagen, 2015b, p.2).

To achieve these ambitions, Copenhagen has adopted a variety of tools and approaches. As a tool for politicians to use in budget negotiations, the municipality prepares - veloped in collaboration with land owners and the local committees in their respective for developments in their neighbourhoods. It is also explicitly stated that these action plans have to include a comprehensive analysis on the background and status of the - ognized by Redaelli (2016) as a commonly used tool to spur placemaking initiatives. - orative budgeting or project-based funding pools, the collaborative nature of the action plans to develop neighbourhoods with a localized place-narrative in mind represents a placemaking approach to urban development.

Cycling and transportation Cycling is another thriving aspect of placemaking in Copenhagen. In addition to various bicycle-friendly plans and policies, the city has produced cycling indicators every other year since 1996 with data on user statistics and citizen perceptions of cycling conditions (Sick Nielsen et al., 2013). This data is used to monitor development and establish concrete targets for cycling in the city. In addition to these measures, the

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 49 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

infrastructure. Various user groups and stakeholders are continuously consulted, while individual cyclists can submit complaints and suggestions regarding the cycling infrastructure through an online platform (Ibid). This has led to a drastic increase in the popularity of cycling in Copenhagen, with an average of 36 % of all the trips within the city made by bicycle during 2008-2010 (City of Copenhagen, 2011). Public transportation accounted for 28 %, walking 7 % and cars for 29 % of the trips in the same period (Ibid).

structure also contributes to this agenda (Koglin, 2015). Since Copenhagen has an integrated planning department where transport planning, urban planning and environ- - established. The planning department in Copenhagen consists of three divisions: urban planning and design, transport, and environment. In addition to working under the same political leader, the non-elected leaders of these divisions hold weekly meetings to discuss their work, and development projects are organised with representatives from each division giving their professional input (Ibid). This strong collaboration has created an environment of understanding and compromising, where cycling is seen as a common, department-wide goal, instead of a give-and-take situation where transport - Fig. 33) (Ibid). Identifying common goals between different actors is recognized by Pierce et al. (2011) as key to prevent and

Fig. 33 Busy cycle-lane in Copenhagen. The city features several well marked and separated cycle lanes. (Rudi Bressa)

Participatory policies Copenhagen works actively to encourage its citizens to voice their opinions regarding - plaints and have their voices heard. In addition to the aforementioned online platform hearings for all major development projects. These hearings, both past and present, can be found from an online portal, where citizens can also send in their own suggestions directly (City of Copenhagen, 2020f). When conducting research on the develop- to collect data from citizens on values, priorities and concerns. Since local committees are acting as the main voice of local citizens in the political process of planning, they are responsible for the most extensive citizen dialogues at the grassroots level. Local committees organize classic citizen meetings, pop-up activities and street meetings; environment; and use social media to support fast debate and to disseminate information (Copenhagen Local Committees, 2020c).

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 50 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Enghave Minipark

Enghave Square, a small park located in the central district of Vesterbro, was to be redeveloped when a new metro station entrance was constructed. Kenneth facelift for the area (Fabian and Samson, 2015). Balfelt sat down with the locals who sit in the park almost every day to discuss the functionality and aesthetics of the place. He then sketched up design ideas together with the beer-drinkers, and presented them to the municipality before they had even started the stan- - new location was found for them 150 meters away from their original spot (Fig. 34) (Ibid).

Fig. 34 Enghave Minipark. The human-scale character of the place was protected in the redevelopment of the park. (Kenneth Balfeldt)

The case of Enghave Minipark indicates that while urban development projects in Co- penhagen are usually initiated by the municipality or the local committees, the local authorities are also open to bottom-up initiatives. Allowing private actors to rise up and lead the project in a non-authoritarian, follower-dominant fashion aligns with the intel- Minipark was clearly a truly place-led one.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 51 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Carlsberg City

Carlsberg City (Fig. 35), located in the centrally located district of Vesterbro, is an old industrial site with large beer brewing facilities, that is currently being developed into a new neighbourhood (Visit Copenhagen, 2020). Contrary to the Enghave Minipark case, the Carlsberg project was initiated by the municipali- supporting the development of a street (sub)culture and music events in a DIY fashion (Fabian and Samson, 2015). Much like the Jubileumsparken0.5 project in Gothenburg (see Chapter 2.1), the Carlsberg case used short-term DIY interventions strategically to create a narrative for the place, before being formally developed by architects (Ibid). Several cultural institutions, such as art galleries, theatres and concert venues have already moved into the area and it has be- Copenhagen, 2020).

Fig. 35 Carlsberg City. The old brewing facilities are currently undergoing a facelift. (Visit Copenhagen)

The case of Carlsberg City illustrates how the municipality uses DIY urbanism as a tool to activate spaces undergoing transformation. While the municipality allows and supports bottom-up initiatives in this context, they view short-term interventions as - that professional architects and designers are leading the heavily place-based project - ing the space activation phase, but then adopted a more authoritarian approach when formalizing the master plan for the area. Despite some concerns regarding its negative 2018), Perrault et al. (2020) support the notion of formalizing placemaking processes in a post-development phase in order to maintain active stakeholder involvement and to create a clear division of responsibilities between different actors.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 52 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Valby Pavilion

The local committee of the Valby district in eastern Copenhagen installed a pavilion in collaboration with a research team as a test setup for the future use of a run-down space in a centrally located courtyard (Wagner, 2018). The physical structure of the intervention consisted of a small, open, wood-framed pavilion, and an old container (Fig. 36). This setting was used by various actors for different activities and events to activate the space. These activities included, among others, a pop-up bar and café, book exchange cabinets, planting beds and a playground. The area, surrounded by broken windows and bolted doors, eventually became a popular hang-out spot for local residents, with game evenings, community dinners and concerts regularly taking place there (Ibid). While the local citizens recognized and embraced the cultural value and potential of the site, the municipality decided to redevelop the site in order to build public housing for intellectually and developmentally disabled youth (Clausager Rich, 2019). However, despite the buildings around it being redeveloped, the Valby the various activities are still in place.

Fig. 36 Valby Pavilion. The public court-yard features a container-bar and a wooden-framed pavilion. (Nima Alijani, 2018)

- interests are especially common in non-hierarchical, multi-level governance projects such as the Valby Pavilion (Peters and Pierre, 2012). Finding similarities in the goals of interest. Since the initial efforts and goals with the Valby Pavilion were mainly relevant to the district, and not the municipality as a whole, the local committee was in charge of both initiating and implementing the project. However, when the municipality recognized the potential of satisfying a greater need of the city through a redevelopment of the area, they became invested in the project. In line with their policies, they did not explicitly overrule the wish of the local committee, but opted for a co-operative model, This can be interpreted as the municipality taking the role of a mediator in the project, - texts is an example of serving as an intelligent host (Collinge and Gibney, 2010).

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 53 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Fredriksholm-Dokøen

The former military area on Holmen was being redeveloped after the navy moved were quickly placed in the area, spurring the idea of the area being turned into a cultural district. The municipality still wanted to maintain the military characteristics and the history of the area, implementing strict local plans to protect these donation supported the construction of a state-of-the-art opera house (Fig. 37) (Ibid). With these injections of cultural facilities into the area, it has evolved into a more formal center of culture to display and portray an outward image of high culture, with very little bottom-up activity and spontaneous cultural creativity.

Fig. 37 The Copenhagen Opera House. Built by the by a private donator, the modern opera house has hosted several world class artists. (Michael Shirrefs)

In the case of Fredriksolm-Dokøen, the municipality adopted an authoritarian, top- down leadership style, with the overall strategic goals for the area envisioned by planners and architects and implemented through formal planning processes. While the - tics, the implementation did not follow placemaking principles. The leadership role of the municipality is situated somewhere between project-driven and discipline-led on

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 54 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Refshaleøen

- mises on Refshaleøen no longer served their original, industrial purpose. The area quickly attracted a host of creative entrepreneurs, who were attracted to entrepreneurs created a variety of activities and organized events in the area, which gradually emerged as a new cultural center with various informal activities and projects taking place there (Fig. 38) (Ibid). Contrary to the Fredriks- holm-Dokøen case, the municipality did not intervene directly in the development of Refshaleøen but instead adopted a follower-dominant leadership role. - ting it as a “perspective area”, which postponed any formalized developments of 2020, the area is still used mainly for informal, temporary projects, which are popularity as a cultural district is highlighted by an old industrial complex, a relic from its shipyard days that served as the host venue for the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest (Ibid).

Fig. 38 Refshaleøen. The old industrial area has been turned into a cultural hot spot, buzzing with life. (Visit Copenhagen)

In the case of Refshaleøen, the municipality took on a follower-dominant role, supporting and embracing the bottom-up initiatives that were emerging in the area. The

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 55 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

_The case of Papirøen

and Port Development (a company owned by the government and the municipality), the industrial island of Papirøen found itself in an interim period between short-term interventions (Ibid). The implementation of these interventions was externalized to Klaus Kastbjerg, a private property developer, with the only re- quirement from the municipality for the nature of the interventions being to main- - novative companies to create experience-based activities on the island. This led to the area quickly becoming a prominent and popular part of the recreational and cultural scene of Copenhagen. Despite this initial bottom-up approach and follower-dominant role of the municipality, they opted for a more authoritarian and formal master plan to be put in place after the interim period had ended, COBE to create development plans for the area (Fig. 39) (Ibid).

Fig. 39 COBE's plans for Papirøen. The modernizing the rustic look of the old paper-factory island. (COBE)

The case of Papirøen illustrates that the municipality can sometimes change their leadership role and approach to developing an area, when they come up with a new strategy. The examples of Fredriksholm-Dokøen, Refshaleøen and Papirøen suggests that Copenhagen lacks a distinct and consistent leadership style, and instead performs - - proaches in different contexts.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 56 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Table 3 Summary of Results from Copenhagen.

Table 3- - perts, they were found to sometimes use external consultants to facilitate placemaking processes. Copenhagen has a decentralized governance structure, with various stake- different contexts. While the local authorities aim at a follower-dominant leadership varies everywhere from project-driven to truly place-led.

The municipality is using DIY urbanism to a wide degree as a tool to activate spaces. The municipality favours an approach where the most successful of these efforts are later formalized in master plans. The municipality conducts extensive research as a yearly action plans and local committee pool funds to spur and support placemaking local committees. In addition to this, Copenhagen uses online platforms and surveys and hosts citizen dialogue campaigns to activate its residents in matters related to the

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 57 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

8. Comparison and Analysis of Results

- pares them with the four units of analysis, including governance structures, leadership roles, placemaking tools and public participation. The comparison of the cities is summarized in Table 4 literature review in Chapter 2. The chapter concludes with a discussion regarding the in general.

The Netherlands and Denmark have a history of implementing bottom-up approaches of local citizen participation in their urban planning (Niitamo, 2020). This reputation can strengthened by the neighbourhood-based urban planning agendas beginning in the Berlin, has undergone similar social movements, leading to the same kind of neighbourhood-based, participatory urban planning approaches implemented there. While social movements have spurred placemaking ideals and agendas in all three cities, some differences were found in how the municipalities interpreted placemaking and organized around it. These differences, as well as the similarities, are summarized in Table 4.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 58 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Table 4 Comparison of results based on the units of analysis.

[1] United Nations, 2018

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 59 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Governance structures The governance structures of each city were found to have many similarities. All of - cally changing the role of their local governments. While many authors (Kearns and to governance, Peters and Pierre (2012) argue that this has not so much been a distinct paradigm shift, as a mere change in the role that governments undertake. For Amsterdam and Copenhagen, this new role of their local governments can be seen clearly in the way they have handed over power and responsibilities to private actors. (Blokland, 2009; Low and Iveson, 2016). However, it also increased the potential for decision-making process, while promoting creative processes taking place in cities (Kearns and Paddison, 2000; Healey, 2004). The development in Berlin is similar to draw conclusions based on historical developments there, since the city was divided

- zation of power and the presence of additional levels of government. Berlin, with their borough councils, and Amsterdam, with their city district representatives, both have additional levels of democratically elected local governments. Both of these more local governments serve a similar purpose, with similar powers at their disposal: they decide on urban planning issues on a neighbourhood scale within their own districts, while the municipality maintains the right to overrule their authority in matters with wider implications for the city as a whole. While Copenhagen, with their local committees, also has a semi-decentralized governance structure, its local committees cannot be regarded as an additional level of government, since its members consist of non-elected volunteers. The role of these local committees is mainly to represent the interests of the local inhabitants in developments taking place in their district. While the local through pool funds at their disposal.

Many central aspects of the placemaking approach, as well as certain values associated with them, are found throughout the planning department in each city. Amsterdam within their own planning departments, but were sometimes found to use external consultants to facilitate placemaking processes. Berlin, on the other hand, can be seen as having their own placemaking teams in their neighbourhood management program, which is working with a local, area-based approach to improve disadvantaged neighbourhoods. In these projects, the municipally employed experts facilitated placemak-

Spatial leadership roles While the spatial leadership roles in each city varied from project to project, certain the cities emphasized consensus as an important part of decision-making. The municipality of Amsterdam embraced this approach, adapting a clearly follower-dominant role in most of the analyzed development projects. Berlin was more experimental with their project. If consensus could not be reached, and enough public support gathered, they The municipality sometimes adopted a more authoritarian, top-down, leader-dominant role, but sometimes embraced a distinctly follower-dominant and bottom-up approach. As Collinge and Gibney (2010) point out, spatial leadership is a relational phenomenon, which is in reality located somewhere between leader-dominance and follower-dominance. They argue that the open-sourced, networked nature of placemaking processes makes a more leader-dominant approach more challenging. This is also true for the

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 60 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

counteracted the placemaking ideals enough for those projects to go against the mu-

As Baker and Mehmood (2015) argue, most urban governance approaches are neither purely top-down or bottom-up but something of an in-between strategy, what they call bottom-linked. These strategies empower grassroots involvement while linking them to more formal, institutional initiatives. This is true for essentially all of the analyzed urban development projects in all three case studies. While the local authorities of all three cities aim to incorporate bottom-up initiatives to their own agendas, they adopted different strategies and leadership structures to achieve this. In the Project for Public found to be the closest to truly place-led. This means that the approach of the local engagement, where the planning and management of shared public spaces is a group and place-sensitive. In practice, this means that their design professionals gather and - ject-driven. This means that their local authorities sometimes rely completely on the singular vision of architects and other design professionals, with a higher focus on on- projects in Copenhagen took on a more passive observing role. In these projects, the local authorities let other stakeholders lead while the authorities facilitated the process and mediated between different stakeholders. Collinge and Gibney (2010) call this role the intelligent host. The role of the intelligent host was used frequently by all three municipalities.

Placemaking tools for placemakers, while Richards (2016) highlights the role of events in placemaking processes. All of these tools were used in the three cities. Extensive research was highlighted by all of the local authorities as key to their urban planning approach. Am- sterdam and Copenhagen focus their research efforts on measuring the quality of life environmental aspects. The authorities of all three cities use this research to create measurable targets and goals for their strategic and zonal planning. While events are used to a certain extent in all three cities to activate places and community engage- authorities organized competitions, where the best bottom-up neighbourhood-level - ed in placemaking events such as the Placemaking Week. Berlin embraced experiments as a tool to test solutions in real life. The city aimed to be more open towards fa- what kinds of solutions work best in practice. Berlin also used visual tools, such as communicate technocratic solutions to the general public, and gather support for some - nancial tools in placemaking processes. For example, they used locally-based action their role as a network-creator, with various public-private partnerships being facilitated at all levels of development.

Despite not being categorized as a tool per se, DIY urbanism is a key aspect of placemaking. The municipalities incorporated DIY urbanism in their strategies as a networking-tool to bring in new stakeholders and to activate spaces before development. All three cities facilitated DIY urbanism extensively in their urban development strategies. All of them also favored an approach where the most successful DIY efforts were later some, who argue that formalizing DIY urbanism efforts counteract community engage- (Project for Public Spaces, 2018). They argue that DIY efforts should instead remain are more positively inclined toward the formalization of DIY urbanism efforts into the

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 61 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

between actors, improving conditions for the post-occupancy maintenance and management of the place.

Public participation Public participation is one of the most important aspects of placemaking (Project for Public Spaces, 2007; Blokland, 2009; Perrault et al., 2020). All three case studies involved various stakeholders throughout their planning processes. They all have the goal of planning the city together with their citizens, but vary in how they facilitate this. Citizens in all of the studied cities are regularly consulted on planning matters, they are notable exception to this is that the municipality of Amsterdam does not regard future citizens as stakeholders in development projects. This meant that public participation the municipality has been improving on this, is by zoning for a larger proportion of self- build houses when redeveloping uninhabited areas. As a result, future home-owners have taken a more active role in developing the design outcomes of their future neighbourhoods.

In Amsterdam and Berlin, the additional levels of government (boroughs and city districts) provide more local representation in decision-making processes. However, as these authorities are subject to the same formal, institutional and political rules and regulations as the municipal government, facilitation of public participation relies most- include: attending hearings, speaking at council meetings, writing letters to representa- committees organize a host of workshops and events to activate their citizens in the planning process. The smaller scale and easier accessibility of these local committees also improves the visibility of more local, neighbourhood-scale initiatives. In addition to this, anyone can become a member of their local committee, as long as they have - pality is required to have a dialogue with the local committee in matters related to their district, joining a local committee is a direct way for citizens to have a say in the urban politics of their district.

In addition to traditional public participation methods and the decentralization of power, all three cities utilized more modern, creative and proactive tools to facilitate public participation processes, such as online platforms and events. Amsterdam organized competitions to gather ideas and activate their citizens on the development of their city. Berlin and Copenhagen developed online platforms for easily accessible surveys, suggestions and complaints. The municipality of Berlin also published an extensive document with guidelines for their local authorities on how to facilitate public participa- Copenhagen regularly organized citizen dialogue campaigns, the results of which are turned into a published document with a place-narrative created based on citizen values and concerns.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 62 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

9. Conclusion

The aim of this research was to examine how local authorities have interpreted and contributed to placemaking. The following research questions were posed:

1. How do municipalities interpret placemaking in their particular contextual conditions? 2. Which urban stakeholders are involved in placemaking and what roles do they play? 3. How do the stakeholders execute placemaking, and what are the outcomes?

To answer these questions, a desktop study was conducted with a comparative case study of multiple cases as the research approach. Three different cities – Amsterdam, Berlin and Copenhagen – were studied using units of analysis including governance structures, spatial leadership, placemaking tools, and public participation.

1. How do municipalities interpret placemaking in their particular contextual conditions?

the interpretations and approaches that the cities have adopted for placemaking. A common emphasis on creating people-centred, human-scale, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly and sociable urban spaces was found in the planning departments of all three cities. Each of the municipalities also interpret placemaking in a way that highlights developing the city together with their citizens with a local, neighbourhood-based approach. To facilitate this, all three cities have taken extensive measures to ensure public participation and the involvement of various actors throughout the planning process. The decentralization of power – which ensures representation of interests on a more local level – exists in all three cities to varying extents. Their governance structures follow a similar streamlined approach, where the municipalities aim at being more

2. Which urban stakeholders are involved in placemaking and what roles do they play?

The extent to which various urban stakeholders were involved, as well as their role in the placemaking process, varied as much within the cities as between them. As - ning professionals were key players. However, the extent to which they executed their power over other stakeholders varied greatly. In smaller-scale projects with a lesser actors to lead the process. These other actors include a variety of stakeholders, including artists, neighbourhood associations, leisure time clubs, civic interest groups and private property developers, among others. The roles of these actors varied from initiative-takers to on-board consultants. Lower levels of local governments and local committees were generally involved in managing the projects where the municipality the municipalities tended to get involved in the process, often overruling the more local or placemaking experts within their planning departments, Berlin used their own, mu- - taged neighbourhoods. Amsterdam and Copenhagen sometimes employed external - to forward their own agendas.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 63 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

3. How do the stakeholders execute placemaking, and what are the outcomes?

Many similarities were also found in the ways that the stakeholders executed placemaking. The process often started with creating a place-narrative in a redeveloped area. In more formal developments, this process usually began with the municipality gathering relevant stakeholders together to gather their input. In more informal projects, starting from a grassroots initiative, the municipality was largely uninvolved at the beginning. However, the municipalities tended to become interested and get involved if integrated the previously informal efforts into their formal plans and agendas for the area. These kinds of DIY urbanism efforts were frequently used by all of the municipalities to activate a space and raise interest in it before development. Whether the DIY urbanism was initiated with the involvement of the municipalities or out of bottom-up initiatives, the planning departments of all three cities favoured an approach where outcomes of the project. Generally, the projects in which the municipality adopted a more follower-dominant, truly place-led approach resulted in place-outcomes that were livelier and more popular with the general public.

9.1 Discussion and Suggested Further Research

The cities that were chosen for the case studies represent some of the most successful, popular, and widely appreciated cities from a placemaking perspective and the similarities between them represent examples of best-practice placemaking. The most notable similarity between the cities was their governance structure. The notion of the role of governments to “steer, not row” is valid in all three cities. All of them involved private actors to a larger extent into the planning process, while handing over more responsibilities to different stakeholders. However, the streamlining of government duties occurred in parallel with the local governments holding on to their authority. They used this authority to overrule other stakeholders to a certain extent when deemed necessary. This is even more clear when analysing the decentralization of power on a local level. In the case of Berlin and Amsterdam, the additional levels of government were - opments on a small, neighbourhood-level scale. All three municipalities can therefore be seen to embrace the decentralization of power while still holding principal authority over the lower levels of government. This can be interpreted as the municipalities being keen to streamline their organizations in a “lean-state” fashion, leaving the arduous micro-management tasks to other actors, while maintaining the authority to step in and intervene when deemed useful for their own agendas. In other words, the municipalities are steering the process, while other actors are doing the rowing.

bound initiatives. By unlocking the potential of a wider spectrum of actors, the municipalities have spurred more people-centred developments. Examples of these success- - ated popular destinations both for citizens and visitors, contributing to liveliness and general pleasantness of their cities. While these outcomes may seem strictly positive for the general quality of life in cities, it is also important to acknowledge the wider implications for society. As placemaking becomes a more popular and widely used term, it runs the risk of losing its original purpose and meaning. The streamlining of governmental duties, and the increased involvement of private actors in the planning proper oversight, the term placemaking could be reduced to an excuse being used to get rid of rules and regulations, to promote the interests of a select group of people over others. In this scenario, placemaking is used as a sort of urban planning greenwashing to hide the negative side-effects of outsourcing the planning process to private actors. polarisation of wealth, with the artistic aspect of placemaking being used to aestheti- cize these problems. The true purpose of placemaking should improve conditions for

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 64 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

socially and/or economically disadvantageous groups, such as ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, women, children and elderly. If these values are not protected, place- - ing the interests of more powerful stakeholders over others.

This study focused on aspects of the local authorities in the placemaking process, with municipalities seen as the object of study. To protect the values associated with placemaking, and minimize the potential risks with losing them, the implications that placemaking has on a wider perspective should be studied. For this kind of study, focus should be placed on humans. A study on placemaking from the perspective of citi- which would contribute to a deeper understanding of the placemaking process include: a study with a perspective of other notable actors, such as private enterprises or local organisations, a study with a focus on places that are not considered to be exem- plars of placemaking, and a study on how placemaking connects to other development agendas, such as environmental protection or economic development.

Placemaking is an intriguing development in a rapidly urbanising world. It has great potential to make cities more liveable and enjoyable, but it can also be used to fuel - gen reveals both positive and negative ways in which local authorities are engaged in

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 65 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

References

Aalbers, M, B., and Sabat, M. (2012) Re-making a Landscape of Prostitution: the Am- sterdam Red Light District,

Abbott, J. (1996) Sharing the City: Community Participation in Urban Management. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 13: 978-1-85583-323-6.

Alexander, E, R. (2002) Metropolitan regional planning in Amsterdam. The Town Plan-

Alvesson, M., and Sköldberg, K. (2009) - itative Research 2nd Edition. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-1-84860-112-3.

Ambrose, L., and Derks, S. (2020) The Urban Gardeners of Berlin. Available at: https://

Baker, S., and Mehmood, A. (2015) Social innovation and the governance of sustainable places. Local Environment 20, no. 3:321-334.

Bain, A, L., and Landau, F. (2019) Artists, temporality, and the governance of collaborative place-making. Urban Affairs Review 55, no.2: 405-427.

Barrett, B, F, D. (2015) United Nations University. To- kyo, Japan. Available at: https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-worlds-most-liveable-cities [Accessed on 18.12.2020].

Bendt, P., Barthel, S., and Colding, J. (2012) Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol 109, p. 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.003.

Berlin-Brandenburg. (2020) Homepage of the Joint Spatial Planning. Available at: https://gl.berlin-brandenburg.de/en/ [Accessed on 18.11.2020].

Berlin Neighborhood Management (2020) Programme “Social Cohesion”. Available at: https://www.quartiersmanagement-berlin.de/english/home-english-version.html [Ac- cessed on 19.11.2020].

Blokland, T. (2009) - Urban Studies 46(8) 1593-1610.

Borra, B., and Urhahn, G. (2020) Land as a Scarce Resource, Work and Workspaces as a Common. The Case of the Metropolitan Region Amsterdam. Real Corp. ISBN 978-3-9504173-8-8.

Bouw, M. (2018) This Tiny Amsterdam Neighbourhood Is a Prototype for Grassroots Urban Planning. www.metropolismag.com/cities/buiksloterham-amsterdam-grassroots-planning/ [Ac- cessed on 16.11.2020].

Cars, G., Healey, P., Madanipour, A., and de Magalhaes, C. (2002) Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux. Ashgate Publishing Limited. ISBN 0-7546- 1939-7.

Green space planning and land use: An assessment of urban regional and green structure planning in Greater Copenhagen.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 66 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. I. 1.

Caves, R, W. (2004) Encyclopedia of the City. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-2522-56.

Clausager Rich, K. (2019) Byggeri af ungdomsboliger på Smedestræde udskydes i yderligere to år. [Translation: Construction of youth housing on Smedestræde is postponed for another two years]. Valby Local Committee press release, 28.5.2019. Available at: https://www.valbylokaludvalg.kk.dk/byggeri-ungdomsboliger-paa-smede- straede-udskydes-yderligere-to-aar/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020a) Policy: Urban development. Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/policy/urban-development/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020b) The governing bodies of Amsterdam. Available at: https:// www.amsterdam.nl/en/governance/governing-bodies/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020c) Organisatie. [Translation: Organisation] Available at: https:// www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/organisatie/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020d) Ruimte en Duurzaamheid. [Translation: Space and Sus- tainability] Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/organisatie/ ruimte-economie/ruimte-duurzaamheid/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020e) Verkeer en Openbare Ruimte. [Translation: Public Space] Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/organisatie/ ruimte-economie/verkeer-openbare/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020f) Policy: Social city. Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/ en/policy/policy-innovation/policy-social-city/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020g) Districts and neighbourhoods. Available at: https://www. amsterdam.nl/en/districts/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020h) Wat is gebiedsgericht werken? [Translation: What is area-oriented working?] Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/ stadsdelen/gebiedsgericht/gebiedsgericht/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020i) Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/governance/contact-city-council/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020j) Have a say in politics in your city district. Available at: https:// www.amsterdam.nl/en/governance/say-in-politics/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020k) Policy: Smart mobility. Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/policy/policy-innovation/smart-mobility/ [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020l) Policy: Art throughout the city. Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/policy/policy-culture-arts/art-throughout-city/ [Accessed on 11.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020m) Zuidas. Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/@867083/ zuidas/ [Accessed on 13.11.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020n) Implementation plan: Pleasant neighbourhoods, liveable city. Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/policy/ambitions/pleasant/ [Accessed on 9.12.2020].

City of Amsterdam (2020o) Challenge: Amsterdammers, Make Your City! Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/wonen-leefomgeving/innovatie/european-capital/challenge/ [Accessed on 9.12.2020].

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 67 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

City of Berlin (2015a). Urban Development Concept 2030. Available at: https://www. stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/stadtentwicklungskonzept/index_en.shtml [Accessed on 28.10.2020].

City of Berlin (2015b) Land Use Plan Berlin 2015 Background and Contents. Availa- ble at: https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/fnp/en/bericht/index.shtml [Ac- cessed on 27.10.2020].

City of Berlin (2020a) History. Available at: https://www.berlin.de/berlin-im-ueberblick/ en/history/ [Accessed on 17.11.2020].

City of Berlin (2020b) The history of open space development in Berlin. Available at: https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/en/nature-and-green/landscape-planning/the-history-of-open-space-development/ [Accessed on 18.11.2020].

City of Berlin (2020c) Strategic basis – Integration of land use planning into state-wide and regional planning policies. Available at: https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/ planen/fnp/en/strategische_grundlagen/index.shtml [Accessed on 18.11.2020].

City of Berlin (2020d) Available at: https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/stadtentwicklungsplanung/en/gewer- be/standort.shtml [Accessed on 19.11.2020].

City of Berlin (2020e) Explanatory comments on the Land Use Plan and the involvement of the public: The planning process. Available at: https://www.stadtentwicklung. berlin.de/planen/fnp/en/erlaeuterungen_fnp/verfahrensablauf.shtml [Accessed on 23.11.2020].

City of Berlin (2020f) Explanation for the participation. Available at: https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/fnp/en/buergerbeteiligung/sie_sich_aeussern.shtml [Accessed on 23.11.2020].

City of Berlin (2020g) Berlin Environmental Atlas. Available at: https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/evorwort.htm [Accessed on 23.11.2020].

City of Berlin (2020h) Explanatory comments on the Land Use Plan and the involvement of the public: Strategic planning objectives. Available at: https://www.stadtentwicklung. berlin.de/planen/fnp/en/fnp/strategische_ziele.shtml [Accessed on 25.11.2020].

City of Berlin (2020i) Berlin Mobility Act. Available at: https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/en/

City of Berlin (2020j) Temporäre Radfahrstreifen. [Translation: Temporary Cycle Lanes] Available at: https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/radverkehr/ weitere-radinfrastruktur/temporaere-radfahrstreifen/ [Accessed on 2.12.2020].

City of Berlin (2020k) Autofreie Kieze und Straßen: Berlin gewinnt durch neue Räume. [Translation: Car-free neighborhoods and streets: Berlin wins with new spaces] Avail- able at: https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/fussverkehr/autofreie-kieze-und-strassen/ [Accessed on 2.12.2020].

City of Berlin (2020l) Begegnungszonen. [Translation: Encounter Zones] Available at: https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/fussverkehr/begegnungszonen/ [Accessed on 2.12.2020].

City of Copenhagen (2011) - egy 2011-2025. Copenhagen City Technical and Environmental Affairs. Available at: https://urbandevelopmentcph.kk.dk/artikel/city-cyclists [Accessed on 13.10.2020].

City of Copenhagen (2015a). City of Copenhagen Municipal Plan 2015 The Coherent City. City of Copenhagen Finance Administration and City of Copenhagen Centre for Urban Development. Available at: www.kp15.kk.dk [Accessed on 24.9.2020].

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 68 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

City of Copenhagen (2015b). Co-create Copenhagen Vision for 2025. Copenhagen City Technical and Environmental Affairs. Available at: https://urbandevelopmentcph. kk.dk/artikel/co-create-copenhagen [Accessed on 13.10.2020].

City of Copenhagen (2017) Architecture Policy 2017-2025. Copenhagen City Technical and Environmental Affairs Available at: https://kk.sites.itera.dk/apps/kk_pub2/index. asp?mode=detalje&id=1904 [Accessed on 6.10.2020].

City of Copenhagen (2018). The City of Copenhagen Government 2018-2021. Avail- able at: https://international.kk.dk/artikel/city-copenhagen-government [Accessed on 7.10.2020].

City of Copenhagen (2020a). Bylivsregnskab. [Translation: City Life Accounts] Availa- ble at: https://byudvikling.kk.dk/artikel/bylivsregnskab [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Copenhagen (2020b) Byplanlægning. [Translation: Urban Planning] Available at: https://www.kk.dk/artikel/byplanl%C3%A6gning [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Copenhagen (2020c) Om lokaludvalg. [Translation: About Local Committees] Available at: https://www.kk.dk/artikel/om-lokaludvalg [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Copenhagen (2020d) Valg til lokaludvalg. [Translation: Election to local committees] Available at: https://www.kk.dk/valg-til-lokaludvalg [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Copenhagen (2020e) Bydelsplaner. [Translation: District Plans] Available at: https://www.kk.dk/artikel/bydelsplaner [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Copenhagen (2020f) Om høringer. [Translation: About hearings] Available at: https://blivhoert.kk.dk/artikel/om-hoeringer [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

City of Copenhagen (2020g) Handlingsplaner 2015. [Translation: Action Plans 2015] Available at: https://www.kk.dk/artikel/handlingsplaner-2015 [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

Colomb, C. (2012) Pushing the Urban Frontier: Temporary Uses of Space, City Market- ing, and the Creative City Discourse in 2000's Berlin. Journal of urban affairs, 2012-05-

Collinge, C. and Gibney, J. (2010) Place-making and the limitations of spatial leader- Policy studies, 31(4), pp.475-489.

Copenhagen Local Committees (2020a) Samarbejde med forvaltningerne og de stående udvalg. [Translation: Cooperation with the administrations and the standing committees] Available at: https://lokaludvalg.kk.dk/artikel/samarbejde-med-forvaltningerne-og-de-staaende-udvalg [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

Copenhagen Local Committees (2020b) Puljemidler. [Translation: Pool-funds] Availa- ble at: https://lokaludvalg.kk.dk/artikel/puljemidler [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

Copenhagen Local Committees (2020c) Borgerdialog. [Translation: Public Participation] Available at: https://lokaludvalg.kk.dk/artikel/borgerdialog [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

Dahl, C. (2016) the aesthetic of DIY.

Danish Nature Agency, The (2012) Spatial Planning in Denmark. Ministry of the Envi- ronment, Denmark. ISBN 978-87-7279-586-7.

Dellenbaugh, M. (2020) Inventing Berlin; architecture, politics and cultural memory in the new/old German capital post-1989. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. ISBN : 3-030- 29718-7.

Dembski, S. (2013) Case Study Amsterdam Buiksloterham, the Netherlands: The Chal- lenge of Planning Organic Transformation. group Urban Planning, Amsterdam.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 69 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Dupre, K. (2018) Trends and gaps in place-making in the context of urban development and tourism. Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 12 No. 1, 2019, p.

Fabian, L., and Samson, K. (2015) Claiming participation – a comparative analysis of DIY urbanism in Denmark. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemak-

Fahey, C. (2015) How Berliners refused to give Tempelhof airport over to developers. The Guardian, Cities, 5.3.2015. Guardian News & Media Limited. Available at: https:// www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/mar/05/how-berliners-refused-to-give-tempelhof-airport-over-to-developers [Accessed on 2.12.2020].

Falahat, S., and Madanipour, A. (2019) Lifeworld and Social Space, disP -

Fainstein, S, F. (2008). Mega-projects in New York, London, and Amsterdam. Interna- tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 32, Issue 4, p. 768-785. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00826.x.

Friedmann, J. (2010) Place and Place-Making in Cities: A Global Perspective. Rout-

Gehl, J., and Gemzøe, L. (2001). New city spaces (2.nd ed.). Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press. ISBN 87-7407-255-2

Gehl, J., Gemzoe, L., Kirknaes, S., and Sondergaard, B. (2008) How to revitalize a city. https://www.pps.org/article/howtorevitalizeacity [accessed on 6.10.2020]

Glaeser, E. and Gellrud, J. (2008) The Economics of Place-Making Policies. National Bureau of Economic Research, Massachusetts, USA.

Gulsrud, N, M., Hertzog, K., and Shears, I. (2018) Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating “green placemaking” as a nature-based solution. Environ- mental Research 161, 158-167. Elsevier.

Haas, T. (2008) New Urbanism and Beyond: Designing Cities for the Future. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. New York. ISBN-13: 978-0-8478-3111-1.

Hansen, A., Andersen, H., and Clark, E (2001) Creative Copenhagen: Globalization, Urban Governance and Social Change. 10.1080/09654310120079805.

Healey, P. (2004) Creativity and Urban Governance, disP - The Planning Review,

Healey, P. (2006) Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. European Planning Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3, 299-320, 2006.

Hoekstra, M., and Dahlvik, J. (2018) Neighbourhood participation in superdiverse contexts: comparing Amsterdam and Vienna, Urban Research & Practice, 11:4, 441-459,

Himmelbeet (2020) Was bisher geschah. [Translation: What happened until now] Avail- 29.11.2020].

Hirschhorn, F., Paulsson, A., Sørensen, C, H., and Veeneman, W. (2019) Public transport regimes and mobility as a service: Governance approaches in Amsterdam, Bir- mingham, and Helsinki. Transportation Research Part A 130 (2019) 178-191. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.016.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 70 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Jacobs, J. (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New York. ISBN 0-679-74195-X.

Jantzen, C., and Vetner, M. (2008). Designing Urban Experiences. The Case of Zuidas, Amsterdam.

Karssenberg, H., and Laven, J. (2017) The City at Eye Level in the Netherlands. The

Karge, T. (2018) Placemaking and urban gardening: Himmelbeet case study in Berlin. Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol 11, Issue 2, p. 208-222. Emerald

Kearns, A. and Paddison, R. (2000) New Challenges for Urban Governance. Urban Studies, Vol. 37, No. 5-6, 845-850, 2000.

Kelbaugh, D. (2000) Three paradigms: New Urbanism, Everyday Urbanism, Post Ur- banism – An Excerpt From The Essential COMMON PLACE. Sage Publications. Bulle- tin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 20, No. 4, August 2000, 285-289.

Kemp, A., Lebuhn, H., and Rattner, G. (2015) Between Neoliberal Governance and the Right to the City: Participatory politics in Berlin and Tel Aviv. International Jour- 2427.12262.

Knowles, R. (2012) Transit Oriented Development in Copenhagen, Denmark: from the Journal of Transport Geography Vol. 22 p. 251-261. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.009.

Koglin, T. (2015) Organisation does matter – planning for cycling in Stockholm and Copenhagen. Transport Policy 39 (2015) 55-62. Elsevier Ltd.

Kokx, A., and van Kempen, R. (2010). Dutch urban governance: Multi-level or multi-scalar? European Urban and Regional Studies 17(4) 355-369. SAGE.

Korthals Altes, W, K. (2019) Planning initiative: Promoting development by the use of options in Amsterdam. Land Use Policy 83 (2019) 13-21. Elsevier. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.025.

Lange, B., Kalandides, A., Stöber, B., and Mieg, H, A. (2008) Berlin's Crea- tive Industries: Governing Creativity?, Industry and Innovation, 15:5, 531-548,

Lanzl, C. (2009) Reinventing Public Space: Contemporary Placemaking Practices in Berlin. Public Art Review, Vol 20, No. 2, Issue 40.

Lefebvre, H. (1968) Le Droit à la ville, [English translation by Kofman, E. and Lebas, E. as The right to the City (1996)] In: Writings on Cities. Cambridge, Mass. : Blackwell. ISBN : 0-631-19187-9.

Lidegaard, C., Nucciom M., and Billet, T. (2017) Fostering and planning urban regener- ation: the governance of cultural districts in Copenhagen. Routledge. European Plan-

Lindner, C., and Meissner, M. (2014) Slow Art in the Creative City: Amsterdam, Street Photography, and Urban Renewal. 10.1177/1206331213509914.

Locke, T. (2019) . CNBC online article published on 4.9.2019. CNBC LLC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/04/ global-liveability-index-2019-most-liveable-cities-in-the-world.html [Accessed on 18.12.2020].

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 71 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Loos, I. (2017) - plein. ndsm-werf-to-continue-as-rugged-sister-to-amsterdams-museumplein/?context=349 [Accessed on 12.11.2020].

Low, S., and Iveson, K. (2016). Propositions for more just urban public spaces. City,

MacCallum, D., Babb, C., and Curtis, C. (2019) Doing research in urban and regional planning: methods and methodology for beginners. Routledge, New York. ISBN: 978- 0-315-81889-4.

Majale, M. (2008) Employment creation through participatory urban planning and slum upgrading: The case of Kitale, Kenya. Habitat International 32 (2008) pp. 270-282. El-

Majoor, S. (2008) Progressive Planning Ideals in a Neo-Liberal Context, the Case of Routledge. International Planning Studies, 13:2, 101-117. ISSN:

Majoor, S. (2009) The Disconnected Innovation of New Urbanity in Zuidas Amsterdam, . European Planning Studies, 17:9, 1379-

Majoor, S. (2015) 10.1080/09654313.2015.1014780.

Meijer, D. (2019). Buurtvisies over Buiksloterham. [Translation: Neighbourhood visions about Buiksloterham https://buiksloterham.nl/message/35136/buurtvisies-over-buiksloterham- [Accessed on 16.11.2020].

Migiro, G. (2019) The Most Diverse Cities in the World. World Facts 28.3.2019. Avail- able at: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-diverse-cities-in-the-world.html [Accessed on 9.11.2020].

Mol, A. (1999) Ontological politics. A word and some questions. The Sociological Re-

Nared, J., and Bole, D. (2020) Participatory Research and Planning in Practice. The Urban Book Series. Ljubljana, Slovenia. ISBN : 978-3-030-28013-0.

NDSM. (2020a) Information. Available at: https://www.ndsm.nl/en/practical-information/ [Accessed on 12.11.2020].

NDSM. (2020b) Stitching NDSM-Werf. Available at: https://www.ndsm.nl/en/practical-information/wegwijzer/stichting-ndsm-werf/ [Accessed on 12.11.2020].

Nello-Deakin, S., and Nikolaeva, A. (2020) The human infrastructure of a cycling city: Amsterdam through the eyes of international newcomers, 10.1080/02723638.2019.1709757.

Niitamo, A. (2020). European 0.1792842.

The Governance of Land Use in the Netherlands: The Case of Amster- dam.

Pakhuis de Zwijger (2016) About us. Available at: https://dezwijger.nl/over-ons/about- us/ [Accessed on 11.11.2020].

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 72 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Perrault, E., Lebisch, A., Uittenbogaard, C., Andersson, M., Skunkche, M, L., Segerström, M., Gleisner Svensson, P. and Pere, P-P. et al. (2020) Placemaking in the Nordics. Future Place Leadership, LINK arkitektur and Stiftelsen Tryggare Sverige.

Peters, B, G., and Pierre, J. (2012) Urban Governance. The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics

Pierce, J., Martin, D. and Murphy, J. (2011) Relational place-making: the networked politics of place. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36, no. 1 (2011): 54-70.

Project for Public Spaces. (2007) What is Placemaking? Project for Public Spaces, New York. Available at: https://www.pps.org/article/what-is-placemaking [Accessed on 23.9.2020].

Project for Public Spaces. (2010) Placemaking spurs low-cost, high impact improve- ments to a diverse public square in Amsterdam. Project for Public Spaces, online article 3.11.2020, New York. Available at: https://www.pps.org/article/placemaking-inclusive-livable-public-square-amsterdam [Accessed on 11.11.2020].

Project for Public Spaces. (2017) Exploring Placemaking in Amsterdam. Project for Public Spaces, New York. Available at: https://www.pps.org/article/exploring-placemaking-amsterdam [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

Project for Public Spaces. (2018) Placemaking Booklet. Project for Public Spaces, New York. Available at: https://www.pps.org/article/what-is-placemaking [Accessed on 10.11.2020].

Queirós, A., Faria, D., and Almeida, F. (2017) Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, Vol. 3, Issue 9, p.369-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.887089.

Redaelli, E. (2016). Creative placemaking and the NEA: unpacking a multi-level governance. Policy Studies 37, no. 4: 387-402. Routledge.

Reimer, M., Getimis, P., and Blotevogel, H. (2014) Spatial Planning Systems and Prac- tices in Europe – A Comparative Perspective on Continuity and Changes. Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315852577.

Richards, G. (2016). From place branding to placemaking: the role of events. Interna- tional Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol 8, No.1, p. 8-23. Emerald Pub-

Rittel, H, W, J., and Webber, M, M. (1973) Dilemmas in General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, p. 155-169. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Rooney, C. (2018) The Berlin Underground: Cultivation and Preservation of Subculture. Glossimag, online article, 15.2.2018. Available at: https://glossimag.com/berlin-underground-cultivation-preservation-subculture/ [Accessed on 18.11.2020].

Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001) 2nd ed., original 1991; ISBN 0-691-07063-6.

Savini, F. (2017a) Region, Deconstructing Urbanity in Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Re- gional Research Vol. 40, Issue 6. p. 1152-1169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12469

Savini, F. (2017b). Planning, uncertainty and risk: The neoliberal logics of Amsterdam urbanism.

Savini, F., and Dembski, S. (2016) Manufacturing the creative city: Symbols and politics of Amsterdam North. Cities 55 (2016) 139-147. Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2016.02.013.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 73 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Sick Nielsen, T., Skov-Petersen, H., and Agervig Carstensen, T. (2013) Urban planning practices for bikeable cities – the case of Copenhagen. Urban Research and Practice

Singh, A., and Christmann, G. (2020) Citizen Participation in Digitised Environments in Berlin: Visualising Spatial Knowledge in Urban Planning. Urban Planning, 2020, Vol-

Sismondo, S. (2010) An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies, 2nd Edition. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-1-4051-8765-7.

Spierings, B., Van Liempt, I., and Maliepaard, E. (2018) Ownership and Membership: Practices and Experiences of Neighbourhood Residents in the Wijsgeren Community Garden in Amsterdam. Journal of Economic and Social Geography, Vol 109, Issue 5, p. 677-684. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12337.

Statista (2020) Leading airports in the Nordic countries in 2017, by number of passen- gers. Statista Inc. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/695394/leading-airports-in-the-nordic-countries-by-passenger-number/ [Accessed on 27.12.2020].

Stevens, Q., and Ambler, M. (2010) Europe's City Beaches as Post-Fordist Placemak- ing,

Taylor, P, J. (2004) World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis. Routledge, New York. ISBN 0-203-63405-5.

UN Habitat. (2013) Turning Spaces into Places. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi.

UN Habitat. (2014) Urban Planning for City Leaders. United Nations Human Settle- ments Programme, Nairobi.

UN Habitat. (2015) Global Public Space Toolkit. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi.

United Nations (2018) File 12: Population of Urban Agglomerations with 300,000 Inhab- itants or More in 2018, by country, 1950-2035 (thousands). Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revi- on 6.10.2020].

Urban Age (2007) LSE Cities. Available at: https://urba- nage.lsecities.net/data/berlin-s-governance-structure-2007 [Accessed on 18.11.2020].

van der Valk, A. (2002) The Dutch planning experience. Landscape and Urban Plan- ning 58 (2002) 201-210. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00221-3.

VanHoose, K., and Savini, F. (2017) The social capital of urban activism. Practices in

Visit Copenhagen (2020) Carlsberg City. Available at: https://www.visitcopenhagen. com/copenhagen/planning/carlsberg-city-gdk957600 [Accessed on 9.12.2020].

Wagner, A. (2018) C temporary public urban settings in design critique. 2215-0900.

Zapata, M. (2020) The 75 Most Livable Cities in the World. Far & Wide online article published on 2.6.2020. Granite Media Group, Inc. Available at: https://www.farandwide. com/s/most-livable-cities-in-the-world-b991bf5abeb74716 [Accessed on 18.12.2020].

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 74 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Figure References Fig. 1 Rus Playground in Lima, Peru. Photographer: Basurama. Available at: https://www.pps. org/places/rus-playground

Fig. 2 The Kipsongo slum in Kenya. Photographer: Robert Manyra. Available at: https://www. tuko.co.ke/300568-kipsongo-slum-where-residents-survive-garbage-prostitution.html

Fig. 3 Before Picture of Beijing's Hutongs. Photographer: Charles Liu. Available at: https:// www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2018/04/20/netizens-unimpressed-and-after-comparisons-beijing-hutong

Fig. 4 After Picture of Beijing's Hutongs. Photographer: Charles Liu. Available at: https:// www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2018/04/20/netizens-unimpressed-and-after-comparisons-beijing-hutong

Fig. 5 The Public Sauna in Frihamnen. Image by the author.

Fig. 6 Summary of the Placemaking process. Visualization by the author.

Fig. 7 The four units of analysis. Visualization by the author.

Fig. 8 Amsterdam on a satellite image. Satellite image from Google Earth (25.1.2021), visualization by the author.

Fig. 9 Amsterdam's canals from above. Photographer: Peter Elenbaas. Available at: https:// www.iamsterdam.com/en/business/news-and-insights/news/2019/the-netherlands-is-the- worlds-most-connected-country

Fig. 10 Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan. Image fron the van Eesteren Museum. Available at: http:// vaneesterenmuseum.nl/nl/de-amsterdamse-tuinsteden-op-de-kaart/

Fig. 11 Governance Structure of Copenhagen. Visualization by the author.

Fig. 12 Pakhuis de Zwijger. Photographer: Pakhuis de Zwijger. Available at: https://dezwijger. nl/over-ons/

Fig. 13 Plein 40-45. Photographer: Lodewijk van Es. Available at: http://www.lodewijkvanes.nl/ portfolio/plein-40-45/

Fig. 14 NDSM-Wharf. Photographer: Venetia Rainey. Available at: https://www.silverkris.com/ noord-amsterdam/

Fig. 15 Infrastructure tunnel proposal in Zuidas. Visualization: Friends in Real Estate. Available

Fig. 16 Café de Ceuvel. Photographer: Café de Ceuvel. Available at: http://story154. com/2014/08/13/cafedeceuvel/

Fig. 17 Berlin on a satellite image. Satellite image from Google Earth (25.1.2021), visualization by the author.

Fig. 18 Görlitzer Park. Photographer: City of Berlin. Available at: https://www.berlin.de/se- henswuerdigkeiten/3560154-3558930-goerlitzer-park.html

Fig. 19 Berlin's 1989 General Structure Plan Image by the City of Berlin. Available at: https:// www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/fnp/en/historie/index.shtml

Fig. 20 Governance Structure of Berlin. Visualization by the author.

Fig. 21 Postdamer Platz. Photographer unknown. Available at: https://www.eventlokale.de/ site/_eventlokale/2/Deutschland/7885/Sony_Center_am_Potsdamer_Platz___Eventloca- tion_Berlin.html

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 75 The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

Fig. 22 Temporary cycle-lane in Berlin. Photographer: Broytman/SenUVK. Available at: https:// www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/radverkehr/weitere-radinfrastruktur/temporaere-radfahrstreifen/

Fig. 23 Before picture of a car-free zone in Berlin. Photographer: Ralf Rühmeier. Avail- able at: https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/fussverkehr/autofreie-kieze-und-strassen/

Fig. 24 After picture of a car-free zone in Berlin. Photographer: Ralf Rühmeier. Available at: https:// www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/fussverkehr/autofreie-kieze-und-strassen/

Fig. 25 Himmelbeet Community Garden Photographer: Rosa Medea. Available at: https://li- feandsoulmagazine.com/2018/01/09/himmelbeet-a-community-garden-in-the-heart-of-berlin/

Fig. 26 Güterbahnhof Moabit. Photographer: ZKU. Available at: https://www.zku-berlin.org/

Fig. 27 Strandbar Mitte. Photographer: Bernd Schönberger. Available at: https://www.top- 10berlin.de/de/cat/nachtleben-269/strandbars-1374/strandbar-mitte-709#1

Fig. 28 Tempelho Field. Photographer: Stephannie Braconner. Available at: https://future- landscapes.ca/tempelhofer-feld

Fig. 29 Copenhagen on a satellite image. Satellite image from Google Earth (25.1.2021), visualization by the author.

Fig. 30 Strøget. Photographer: Erik Hageman. Available at: https://www.visitcopenhagen.com/ copenhagen/activities/stroget-main-shopping-street

Fig. 31 Copenhagen's 1947 Finger Plan. Available at: http://danishdesignreview.com/town-

Fig. 32 Governance Structure of Copenhagen. Visualization by the author.

Fig. 33 Busy cycle-lane in Copenhagen. Photographer: Rudi Bressa. Available at: https://www. lifegate.com/copenhagen-bikes-cars

Fig. 34 Enghave Minipark. Photographer: Kenneth Balfeldt. Available at: https://socialinnova- tionexchange.org/insights/enghave-square-bench-where-everybody-can-sit

Fig. 35 Calrsber City. Photographer: Visit Copenhagen. Available at: https://www.visitcopenhagen.com/copenhagen/planning/visit-carlsberg-gdk635356

Fig. 36 Valby Pavilion. Photographer: Nima Alijani. Available at: http://www.vinkkbh.dk/ kbh-steder/vores-steder-th-bar/

Fig. 37 Copenhagen Opera House .Photographer: Michael Shirrefs. Available at: https:// www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/archived/creativeinstinct/copenhagen-opera-house-28shirrefs29/4158958

Fig. 38 Refshaleøen. Photographer: Visit Copenhagen. Available at: https://www.visitcopenhagen.dk/koebenhavn/bydele/det-skal-du-opleve-paa-refshaleoeen

Fig. 39 COBEs plans for Papirøen. idea/paper-island

Table 1. Summary of Results for Amsterdam. Table created by author.

Table 2. Summary of Results for Berlin. Table created by author.

Table 3. Summary of Results for Copenhagen. Table created by author.

Table 4. Comparison of results based on the four units of analysis. Table created by author.

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Filemon Wolfram 76 TRITA ABE-MBT-2124