Jenni Partanen Tampere University of Technology, Finland • Background Theories and Concepts Complexity Planning Methods Citizen Science Liquid Democracy

Images: RIIKKA PYLVÄNEN AESOP Complexity and Planning Thematic group 2014 Manchester

Liquid Planning - Wiki-design

Jenni Partanen Tampere University of Technology, Finland • Background theories and concepts Complexity planning methods Citizen science Liquid democracy

• Liquid planning proposal: digital self-organizing /bottom up planning method

• Case pispala: analogical trial project

• Conclusions, future directions Challenge: HOW TO ARRANGE GLOBAL PLANNING TO ENABLE CONTINUITY OF THE LOCAL PLANNING (Portugali 2012)

- Local plannig: gaining more ground, in unpredictable ways: technological tools, new ways to use the city

Aim: propose a structure for a planning project which could address local features from bottom up for a more considerate (flexible) global plan - also qualitative features VARIOUS PROPOSALS: MANY OF THESE ARE BASED OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF RULES AND RELATIONS BETWEEN AGENTS rules based planning self-organizing and computational planning

Revised “systems dynamics” approaches

Evaluative and educational methods CITIZEN SCIENCE a procedure involving ordinary people to collect and process data as a part of scientific inquiry

- common procedure in early 19th century

- By 20th century professional and amateur sciences separated

- Today revitalization: ecology, environmental sciences:

- enabling technology; tools&applications reduced need for skills to gather or process scientific data LIQUID DEMOCRACY

Bauman (2000) Liquid Modern

Form of direct democracy, yet more flexible

- Direct referendum, or delegeting the vote by topic (not person) - Delegations can be shifted or revoked anytime

SELF-ORGANIZATION

Basic structure 1. proposals of topics;

2. Voting advantages: transparency, less concentration of power, involvement and true participation, flexibility and consideration of bottom-up features (increased (tacit) knowledge), and voting for an initiative, not a representative LIQUID DEMOCRACY

Recent ICT development page ranking methods and algorithms social networks “big data” the crowd sourcing, mash-up mapping, tweeting etc. web/GIS tools&apps ongoing visualization/virtual cities projects provide already applicable methods for the implementation of liquid democracy -thinking in spatial planning.

A structured way to gather of lot of bottom-up tacit information

point out continuous processes not to be disturbed by global planning

to define the essential rules for a global plan, leaving enough freedom for local planning process to take place. LIQUID PLANNING, PROPOSED STRUCTURE Images: Kati Uoti-Helenius(top left), V.O. Kanninen (bottom left) and City of Tampere (right) CASE PISPALA (TAMPERE, FINLAND) SELF-ORGANIZING PLANNING EXPERIMENT - prior to official planning process administered by Tampere City Planning, financed by the European Structural Fund Program. The consultants: Jenni Partanen, Riikka Pylvänen, Tampere University of Technology; Jonas Buchel (social planner), Irma Rantonen (local coordinator)

Pispala Old neighborhood, appr. 3500 inhabitants, 2,5 km from Tampere city center Characteristics: topography, “independency” – a free town Bottom up –activity – associations and activism

Recently gentrification and “untypical” large building projects, demolition of built heritage; conflicts - prior city planning, public garden plans Æ no trust towards the planning office, tension between groups

Interesting but challenging laboratory for a SO bottom up -planning experiment 1. Large open conference - aims:

- mapping the most crucial problems Æ grouping these into entities in a self- organizing manner, and forming interest groups around the emerging themes. No prior solutions provided

Diverse groups - inhabitants, business people, and city workers (planners, traffic planners, parks, real estate people etc.) and other spesialists (universitites) were involved: equal roles Groupwork

Various methods- -live meetings, city walks, lectures and own inquiries…

Assisted by TUT team

Follow up meetings

Results: reports, visual analyses

Designing paths:

TUT introduced saturated claims emerging from prior material: e.g.

“no special use [such as residential only] is defined for sites - housing and other activities are equally allowed and supported in the area”,

“existing building right remains, voluntary renovation may bring more building right”

“in renovation, wind/solar energy will be obligatory/allowed/restricted”

“outer fringe of the public garden may be built on”

“no building on the traditional public garden area”

Æ Presented for elaboration in a common meeting (all the groups) Common meeting Final formulation of the future views: - choose the most relevant ones, produce own, change the formulation - Grouped by TUT, in cooperation with the people - 210 claims used, 115 altered/new

Resulting categories:

- housing, built environment (including building conservation, architecture and building rights); - public gardens and the shore area - parks and [urban] forests - Traffic - services and workplaces

Resulting report was discussed with (and approved by) the City, and published online http://www.tampere.fi/material/attachments/p/5q0pY4cWM/pispalankehityskuva.pdf The final conference and the workshop -the final conference & work shop - aim: elaborate the final versions for the paths (regrouping), define the weights

People: narratives TUT: visual material

http://www.tampere.fi/material/attachments/p/5q0pY4cWM/pispalankehityskuva.pdf CONCLUSIONS - Generally, the process succeeded in pinpointing essential (also qualitative) features and processes in Pispala - some of the good features can be even better supported in a digital liquid process

Positive: - co-operation with professional instead of separation of professional planning and the “participants” - freedom and self-organization in the open process with no predefined starting points or goals - the combination of a free, creative process with a strictly systematic design - focus on (spatial) solutions, not on obscure policies or personal issues - interaction with others, understanding the opponents’ views

Possible improvements in online-version: - Less time consuming and heavy project - More flexible dates - More diversity in tools; tasks division among people - Increase participation of non-active groups - “lighter” participation – “followers” (even estimating potential voting behavior)

- Option to build continuous “local democracy” CONCLUSIONS

Negative: - Time and energy consuming process (may reduce the need for updating the plans) - Role of experts, professional planners, other specialists? -ethical issues – “common good”, property rights; understanding urban processes, “bigger picture”, art&design skills - Manipulation of the process? – emotional aspects; explicating prior interests! - Differences between cities/neighborhoods – education level etc.

Future projects - Evaluation of applications and tools - Proto-model, experiment