The ABC's of Placemaking Governance

The ABC's of Placemaking

Governance

Learning from Amsterdam, Berlin and

Copenhagen

FILEMON WOLFRAM

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

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 place-making.

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 su-pport 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 impro-ve the language.

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

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 mu-nicipalities 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 pri-vate 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 espe-cially evident within the placemaking context, which embraces the idea of co-creation and collaboration.

Keywords

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-ram-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,

följardom -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)

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

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 plac-es (Project for Public Spacplac-es, 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 through-out 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 govern-ance approaches that can facilitate complex partnerships and stakeholder involve-ment. 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 plan-ners (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 mu-nicipality 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 con-tributed 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:

1.2 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 place-making. 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 author-ities have organized around it is then analysed, with practical examples given in the

of the conceptual framework.

pro-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 as-pects 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 en-tails 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

placemak-ing theory, into the governance and management of placemakplacemak-ing 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 over-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.

Fig.1

Children playing in a temporary playground built from recycled ma-terials in a reclaimed, unused infrastructure space in Lima, Peru. This project can be consedered a model example of placema-king 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 pay-ing particular attention to the exist-ing 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).

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-domi-nated 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 par-ticipatory 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

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, citi-zen 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 pa-per, 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-ing Hutongs

(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

(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-nar-rative 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 indus-trial 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 “exist-ing” in the detailed development plan, hinting at an intention to make them more long-term (Dahl, 2016). These tactical, short-long-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, acti-vate 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

(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 responsi-bilities 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 place-making process should ideally not be seen from the perspective of conventional pro-jects 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

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 impor-tant 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 govern-ment 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 in-ter-governmental relations. Since multi-level governance is essentially non-hierarchi-cal, cities and transnational institutions can collaborate directly with one another, with-out 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 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 strat-egies 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 munic-ipality 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 au-thoritarian 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 struc-ture and spatial leadership that municipalities have adopted in the context of place-making 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 engage-ment, 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 munici-palities could adopt the role of the intelligent host in placemaking contexts. In this role, without exercising much power themselves (Ibid). In this approach, municipalities func-tion as intermediaries that facilitate placemaking through soft power, indicating that urban stakeholders.

non-authoritari-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 ap-proach to facilitate this. With a multi-level governance apap-proach 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 be-come 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

3. Conceptual Framework

The aim of this thesis is to examine how local authorities have interpreted and contrib-uted 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.

With respect to governance structures, aspects such as inter-governmental relations, are relevant. Inter-governmental relations involve the power-relationships and hierar-chies 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 pol-icies 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-dom-inance is the guiding theory for this analysis. Whether urban development projects are initiated by the private sector, civic groups, local authorities

Fig. 7

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 placenar -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.

4. Methodology

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

-ban development projects.

4.1 Research Methods

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 con-structionist 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 gov-ernance structures and decision-making processes, a social constructionist epistemol-ogy 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 essen-tially 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 munici-palities, 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

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 stud-ies 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 rep-utation 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, gov-ernance 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.

4.2 Analysis of Data

Data from the secondary sources were extracted by identifying certain keywords, ele-ments and policies. These included, among others, the word placemaking, DIY urban-ism, 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.

5. Case Study of Amsterdam

Fig.8

Amsterdam on a sate-llite 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 pop-ulation 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-lead-ing bicycle infrastructure, vibrant urban life, buzzworld-lead-ing 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

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

-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 plannHol-ing, while the national and provHol-incial governments only get Hol-involved Hol-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 lo-cal 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 struc-ture 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 adminis-trations, an administrative and corporate staff and 7 city districts (City of Amsterdam, forming an additional level of government. Issues related to urban planning are situat-ed in the Space and Economy administration, which in turn is dividsituat-ed 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

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 rela-tively short time, involving many different public and private actors. This voluntary co-to create seven (later growing co-to eight) formal city-regions, with an obligation co-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 munici-pality 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 plan-ning policies, Amsterdam has still maintained ownership of almost all the land in the

-ket value of land prices in the city (Ibid).

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 municipal-ity 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 develop-ments and policies, the city government has included several placemaking ideals in their urban development goals. Examples can be seen in their Pleasant

neighbour-hoods, liveable city -plan, which states that they will work with local residents to

devel-op 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 men-tion 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 place-making initiatives. The city has also organized an event, Amsterdammers, Make Your

City!

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.

_

2016). Based in an old refrigerated warehouse (Fig. 12), the organization hosts several hundred events per year with the goal of linking creative industries to-gether 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 mu-nicipality, 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 cul-tural 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)

-ties are willing to take on a follower-dominant leadership role in placemaking process-es, 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 au-thorities have maintained an active part of the initiatives by participating in their events and supporting their networking initiatives. These factors indicate that the municipality

Fig.12

_

The municipality of Amsterdam uses external consultants to facilitate placema-the Plein 40-45 square in one of placema-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 works-hop 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).

The case of Plein 40-45 indicates that the municipality is, in some cases, willing to in-volve 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-Fig.13

_

-(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, archi-tects, 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).

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, de-spite 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.

Fig.14

_

-into a high-density, mixed-use neighborhood (Majoor, 2009). The project fea-tures 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).

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 relation-ship, where the municipality is the strongest actor in urban development projects and

Fig.15

_

Buiksloterham is an old industrial area located in the Amsterdam-Noord district. -a mixed-use urb-an -are-a w-as -achieved org-anic-ally -and gr-adu-ally through l-aws 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).

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.

-Fig.16

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-sen-sitive and truly place-led.

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

Table 1.

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, buzz-ing nightlife and popular green areas (Fig. 18) (Lange et al., 2008).

Fig.18

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 plan-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 combi-ned, making it easy to compare standards in East and West Berlin. (City of Berlin)

6.2 Urban Governance of Berlin

is divided into four different levels (Fig. 20). The Federal Government stipulates gen-eral 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

re-sponsible 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).

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 sup-port 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).

Fig.20

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 work-ing 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 devel-opment (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

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 col-laboration 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 pro-cess (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).

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 cre-ated 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.

_

Berlin has a long history of using vacant plots of land for gardening. The popula-a new pepopula-ak due to increpopula-ased climpopula-ate popula-awpopula-areness (Ambrose popula-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 garde-ners. 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).

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.

Fig.25

_

-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 ma-nagement 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).

The Güterbahnhof Moabit case shows how local administrators work with their Neigh-bourhood Management programme in practice. Their role in the process indicates that

Fig.26