______________________________________________________
THE NYMA ASSEMBLAGE: A DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN
BECOMING & BEING
–
Bringing Assemblage Theory to Urban Practice
______________________________________________________
Name: Maria Ernst Student Number: s1018071 Study Program: MSc in Human Geography
Specialization: Urban and Cultural Geography, MAN-MSG051 Faculty: Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Pascal J. Beckers Word count: 41.478 words
Abstract
Previous research has shown an increasing interest in conceptualizing assemblage thinking for urban studies, human geography and sociology. Based on the Deleuzoguattarian philosophy, this new perspective on urban planning and design can be applied to enhance
explorational thinking in the realm of urban practice. In order to make practical use of assemblage theory, the ontological focus needs to shift to a more methodological approach. The creative potential that lies in this methodology can bring new insights on the application of assemblage thinking to contemporary planning and design practices. Here, this research builds upon the double articulation, using (de)territorialization and (de)coding, to elucidate the coming together of the assemblage system and its urban concepts. So far, little is known about the roles that the two articulations of the theory play in regard to the placemaking- and identity formation processes of urban (re-)development projects. This study provides insights on a practical application of assemblage theory to urban practice with a case study of an urban redevelopment project in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The framework of this research consists of a multi-method approach, combining participatory action research with observations, interviews and visual data. Herewith, earlier conceptualizations of assemblage thinking are attempted to overcome, while a new visual methodology is created.
Keywords: Assemblage Theory, (de)territorialization, (de)coding, urban practice, placemaking, place identity, becoming and being, visual data, visual conceptualizations
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 1
1. Introduction ... 5
1.2 SOCIETAL RELEVANCE ... 7 1.3 SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE ... 92. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 11
2.1 Assemblage Theory ... 112.1.1 Finding the Roots ... 11
2.1.2 A Virtual- Actual Approach on Assemblage Theory ... 12
2.1.3 A Theory of Gathering, Emergence and Fragility ... 13
2.1.4 The Two Main Concepts of Assemblage Theory: (De)Territorialization and (De)Coding ... 15
2.1.5 A New Conceptualization – Overcoming the Double Axis ... 17
2.1.6 Assemblage Theory in Practice: Placemaking and Identity ... 19
2.1.7 A Short Comparison: Assemblage Theory & Actor-Network Theory ... 20
2.1.8 A Short Comparison: Assemblage Theory & Critical Urban Theory ... 21
2.2 Placemaking ... 21
2.2.1 Overcoming Orthodox Planning Practices ... 21
2.2.2 Placemaking as the New Planning Paradigm ... 23
2.2.3 Placemaking within the Creative City Discourse ... 24
2.2.4 Small Scale Placemaking ... 26
2.3 Place Identity and Sense of Place ... 28
2.3.1 The Emotional Realm of Space ... 28
2.3.2 Place Branding ... 30
2.3.3 A Strong Tie with Placemaking ... 31
2.3.4 A Strong Tie with Assemblage Theory ... 32
3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ... 34
4. Methodology ... 35
4.1 Research Philosophy ... 35 4.2 Research Approach ... 36 4.2.1 Procedures of Inquiry ... 36 4.2.2 A Qualitative Approach ... 37 4.3 Research Strategy ... 384.3.2 Desk Research ... 40
4.3.3 Participatory Action Research (PAR) as the Framework for Multi-Methods ... 40
4.3.4 Observations (Participant Observation) ... 41
4.3.5 Expert and User Interviews ... 42
4.3.6 Visual Data ... 44
4.4 Validity and Reliability ... 46
4.5 Research Ethics ... 47
5. CASE STUDY ... 48
5.1 NYMA Nijmegen ... 48 5.2 Location ... 50 5.3 History ... 51 5.4 A Public-Private Collaboration ... 535.5 A Visual Tour around NYMA ... 54
5.6 Development Vision – a Work in Progress ... 63
5.7 Challenges ... 67
6. Analysis ... 69
6.1 Contextual Understanding through Assemblage Theory ... 69
6.1.1 The Context of the NYMA Case ... 69
6.1.2 The Complexity of the Assemblage ... 71
6.2 Double Articulation and Placemaking ... 73
6.2.1 Placemaking at the NYMA ... 73
6.2.2 A Lack of Socio-Material Expression ... 75
6.2.3 Placemaking, Flexibility and Dynamic ... 76
6.2.4 Constant Becoming and Room for Experiment ... 78
6.3 Double Articulation and Identity Formation ... 79
6.3.1 Deriving Identity ... 80
6.3.2 The Process of Identity Formation ... 82
6.3.3 NYMA as a Multiple Identity ... 83
6.4 Placemaking and Identity Formation ... 85
6.5 Goals and Identity Formation ... 87
6.5.1 Hierarchy of Goals ... 88
6.6 Deriving Practical Advice for the NYMA from Assemblage Theory ... 91
6.6.1 Processual and Organizational Issues at the NYMA ... 92
6.6.2 Spatial and Programmatic Issues at the NYMA ... 94
6.6.3 Input for Creative Visualizations at the NYMA ... 97
6.7 Theoretical Implications of the Study ... 103
7. Discussion ... 104
7.1 Limitations ... 109
7.2 Future Research ... 110
8. Bibliography ... 112
9. Appendix ... 120
9.1 Interview Guide English ... 120
9.2 Interview Guide Dutch ... 122
9.3 Observation Protocol ... 125
1. Introduction
“This project is kind of an experiment and finding of a new way of how to realize our ambition with the different stakeholders. This is also kind of new territory [for us]. It is a kind of research we do
together, and together we need to find the way that works the best.” (A project developer NYMA, Nijmegen, 2019)
Our world is changing fast. Looking at urban spaces and their policy regimes, we have experienced a rapid change in planning philosophy since the mid-80s, not only in the Netherlands, but also in other Western countries. Back then the paradigm of urban reconstruction that was focusing on economic growth exerted by a mainly hierarchical, governmentally organized framework, was replaced by the classic urban renewal philosophy that later developed into what we today refer to as urban revitalization and urban redevelopment (Mould, 2015; Kooijman & Romein, 2007). This change became known through the financial crisis, which sparked welfare policies of socio-economic redistribution within the Netherlands and their urban policy regime (Kooijman & Romein, 2007). Henceforth, more responsibility was being placed on the redevelopment of industrial areas and large-scale consumption projects of cities, making them competitive on the market and optimizing their potentials within the growing creative city discourse. Those projects did not only change their normative planning focus, but also their organizational structure, going from linear approaches to “multi-actor networks” (Kooijman & Romein, 2007, p. 10). This surge in complexity, not only regarding the organizational framework but also the increasing diversity in agency, interests and expectations means that each redevelopment project requires its own instruments and strategies. This new approach is very well exemplified by the beginning quote. Complex, multi-agency networks can be studied by the means of assemblage theory, viewing the assemblage as a system of
interrelating entities with properties in and outside of the network. Recently, more urban scholars aim for a practical application of the theory, anticipating that this approach allows for a better conceptualization of urban phenomena that are object of constant change and high complexity (McFarlane, 2011). If the complexity of the assemblage is not studied and controlled over the course of time, redevelopment projects run the risk of losing their original objective, mostly at the expense of weaker socio-economic groups. The reason for the momentum that projects generate is due to the neoliberalist framework they are placed in, often taking control by the means of commercialism and economic growth (Florida, 2017; Lindner & Rosa, 2017). A well-known example here is the famous New York High Line Park, where a discarded railway line was transformed into a public park, changing the socio-material structures of the neighbourhood in no time. Though this redevelopment project can be celebrated as a successful venture for the preservation of old, historic sites and the social and creative value they can attribute to the city when being transformed, it is simultaneously
connected to urban politics, accelerating gentrification and displacement. Even though the transformation started as a bottom-up, community-based movement, the project’s objective changed over the course of time (Diller, Scofidio & Renfro, 2019; Lindner & Rosa, 2017). Its international fame and popularity made it an accelerator for economic and touristic revenues, leading to rapid gentrification that was neither planned nor anticipated in the beginning stages (Bourne, 2012; Lindner & Rosa, 2017). The complexity of projects is one of the reasons that often hinder long term developments in their success, something that projects like “Stuttgart 21” and “Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER)” in Germany demonstrate. The strong division and interplay of different interests, powers and agencies is, in both cases, seen as the reason for their often-perceived failure as miscalculated projects. Averting errors and risks is, of course, one of the main objectives in any urban development project. As no single logic can be applied as a strategy for universal success, the local forces within those “multi-actor networks” need to be studied for steering the planning and design practices into the right direction. Here, the application and conceptualization of assemblage theory has risen in the last decade within both disciplines, geography and urban studies. Subsequently, this research combines the theoretical and practical knowledge of landscape architecture with urban and cultural geography, creating an interdisciplinary study. The mostly from a philosophical viewpoint discussed assemblage theory creates the
framework for exploring the complexity of the socio-material entities of a redevelopment project. Furthermore, this research paper offers a new way forward of how assemblage theory can be conceptualized for successful and objective-driven urban practice. Besides this research goal of shifting the ontological focus of assemblage theory to a more methodological approach, this thesis also aims for disclosing the creative potential of assemblage theory. Here, it is a research goal to elucidate the role of double articulation, using (de)territorialization and (de)coding, in regard to placemaking- and identity formation processes of an urban redevelopment project. Moreover, this thesis aims to overcome earlier conceptualizations of assemblage thinking by attempting to create a new visual methodology. Concluding, this study seeks to providing insights on the practical
application of assemblage theory to urban practice, by researching a single case study: the post-industrial urban redevelopment project NYMA in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The following main research question and subordinate research questions are formulated to fit the prior named research goals.
RQ: Which roles do the two assemblage concepts of (de)territorialization and (de)coding have in the placemaking and identity formation process of the post-industrial urban redevelopment project NYMA in Nijmegen, the Netherlands?
RQ1: How can assemblage theory be used to gain a contextual understanding of a specific
area development initiative?
RQ2: What role do (de)territorialization and (de)coding play in regard to placemaking?
RQ3: What role do (de)territorialization and (de)coding play in regard to identity formation?
RQ4: What is the link between placemaking and identity formation?
RQ5: What is the role of each NYMA goal in the identity formation?
RQ6: What practical advice, derived from the application of the two assemblage concepts,
can be given to the NYMA development initiative concerning placemaking and identity formation?
RQ7: What are the theoretical implications of the study?
In order to examine those research questions, this study first elaborates on the societal and scientific relevance of the topic. Subsequently, the theoretical framework is established through a literature review. Here, assemblage theory in its virtual-actual and realist-mereological approach is elucidated to explain the two main concepts of the theory, (de)territorialization and (de)coding, and how they can be applied to a practical urban context. Furthermore, the literature review examines placemaking, as well as place identity and sense of place in relation to assemblage theory and its two concepts. Based on this literature review, the conceptual framework of this thesis is presented in relation to the overarching research question and its sub-questions. Then, the methodology, including research philosophy, research approach, research strategies and the research ethics, provides insight into how data was being collected and analysed. After this theoretical groundwork has been laid, the subject of the case study, the post-industrial urban redevelopment project NYMA in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, is introduced. Following that, the analysis of the collected data is presented. Here, it is reflected on each of the sub-questions separately by the means of
triangulation, elucidating the role of the double articulation regarding placemaking, identity formation and project outcomes. From this analysis, specific advice on how processes at the NYMA can be optimized and what the theoretical implications of the study contain, are derived. Ultimately, a discussion, where the main research question is reflected upon, is presented. Here, the main findings are shown visually. Subsequently, ideas about future research are given.
1.2 SOCIETAL RELEVANCE
Within todays dominant planning paradigm, urban redevelopment projects that are dealing with dilapidated sites, especially former industrial areas, are well known. Not only through the fiscal crisis in 2008, but also through the growing consciousness around sustainability and green, liveable cities, urban revitalization projects gained in political, economic and societal relevance (Chapain &
Stryjakiewicz, 2017; Mould, 2015). Instead of applying a tabula rasa approach to obsolete industrial areas, in the wake of urban redevelopment the transformation of the site presents a more
sustainable form of renewal (Aureli, 2015; Appenzeller & Probst, 2012). Considering the
post-industrial site, the NYMA is located at, the case study chosen for this research is a perfect example of this trend. Here, the contemporary planning and design practices focus on shaping old material forms into new structures, while maintaining the industrial and original character of the site
(Appenzeller & Probst, 2012). This transformation of underused and often toxic sites (due to asbestos and nitrogen) grow, on the one hand, from an increasing consciousness for sustainability and
preservation. On the other hand, the revitalization of valuable plots of land in urban areas is required due to high demand for premises and entrepreneurial spaces, contemporarily favoured on old industrial sites. The latter can be traced back to a societal trend, where a huge fascination, especially in the creative industries, has been formed for those decaying areas. These old industrial sides hold a great attraction and nostalgia, for humans still seek for uncontrollable, chaotic and raw urban sites that are perceived as the opposite of the “regular” neoliberal city (Kohn, 2010). Their renewal is experienced as a way to maintain the original spirit of the place, valuing the perceived place identity and material authenticity. Here, the application of assemblage theory connects to those two strong lines of coding and territorialization already existing in the beginning of an urban redevelopment project. Thus, the practical conceptualization of assemblage theory presents an instrument that can help to steer the redevelopment, putting emphasis on how to ensure stability of the system that is
regarded an assemblage. This case study contributes to those practical issues at hand by steering the degree of coding and territorialization, so the socio-material expression meets the project’s
objective. As I have already elucidated, the complexity and precariousness of those projects is better approached when the assemblage system is studied from within. Not only does the application of the double articulation of assemblage theory disclose what entities tend to destabilize (weaknesses) and stabilize (strengths) the system, but also can its application be used as a strategic planning technique to see new opportunities arising. We shall see the NYMA case example, studied in this research, is occupied with the difficulty of creating a strong core, around which planning and design practices, like placemaking, wrap around in unanimity. This process must succeed, despite the complexity all entities inevitably create. It is necessary to disclose the entities of the assemblage, such as
collaboration, time frame, materiality, context, program and goals, to study their coded and territorializing nature to give ideas and suggestions about what enhances the resiliency and redundancy of the development project. Then, the development is a strong enough assemblage framework to not lose its values and aim. This is, of course, not only essential to control
commercialization and other economic powers that are quickly taking over due to the neoliberalist framework the assemblage is set in, but also to maintain the strong social agenda of creating spaces
for entrepreneurs with less economic power. The latter goes hand in hand with the need of society for places that are accessible, not privatized or controlled by a minority group of socio-economic strengths. The question for whom places are being designed and made accessible for is a major question in urban planning set in a neoliberal discourse of a growing division between rich and poor. Even though multiple projects, like the New York High Line Park, were developed with a strong social agenda, oftentimes too many compromises needed to be made over the course of time. This,
ultimately, diminishes the social benefits. Those hazards pose a risk to all urban developments aiming for inclusivity and protection of vulnerable groups – an objective that is also part of NYMA’s itinerary. Hence, this case study applies assemblage theory to urban practice to help actors, such as the municipality, project developers, entrepreneurs, and urban planners, understand more about the ingredients necessary for success. Actively engaging in those processes discloses individual entities that are necessary to be understood when approaching holism. Thus, this research also presents the practical recommendations gained by the application of assemblage theory as an essential part for success. Not only do they relate to peoples’ own ideas and motives, but also do they disclose missing entities or problems invisible to other actors – all of which we shall see, are not only relevant for theory, but also explicitly beneficial for the case study at hand. Moreover, communication processes can be improved, leading to more efficient planning procedures that save money which can, for instance, be invested to make the development more inclusive and social. Hence, the application of assemblage theory is a first step to a more democratic planning and design practice of today.
1.3 SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE
Even though assemblage theory and its theoretical approach has come a long way, its complexity is still partly inherent to the philosophical tilt of Deleuzian tradition. The ontological and strongly theoretical focus of assemblage theory has led to much confusion and arguments between different authors (i.e. Brenner, Madden & Wachsmuth, 2011; Farias, 2011; DeLanda, 2010;
McFarlane, 2009; McFarlane, 2011). There still is no common ground when it comes to the methods on how to conduct research within the theoretical framework of assemblage theory. I argue that some of the resentment researchers feel about assemblage theory is due to the strong theoretical focus and lack of aspiration within its practical prospects. Yet, the concepts of assemblage theory are far more fit to inform and influence current urban planning and design practices than anticipated so far. Here, this study focuses on closing the research gap from four sides.
First, in this thesis a new visual conceptualization of assemblage theory that overcomes the hazardous deception of the double axis is developed. The axis, introduced by DeLanda (2006), was ever since reproduced and adapted by other scholars (i.e. Dovey, 2010; Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015; Paicu, 2016) while still being object of critic and conflicting theoretical notions. Hence, this research
attempts for a new visualization that overcomes the double axis, that DeLanda (2006) already himself noted in need of enhancment, by restructuring the conceptualization of the double articulation.
Second, the concepts of assemblage theory are applied to a local urban redevelopment project by focusing on two globally known subjects of urban practice: placemaking and place identity. The concept of identity has already been recognized being strongly related to coding, one concept of the double articulation (DeLanda, 2016; Youssef & Tsenkova, 2016). Yet, assemblage theory has mostly been connected to the concept of place and less to the urban practice of placemaking itself (Muminovic 2015 & 2019). To the best of my knowledge, the roles of the two assemblage concepts of (de)territorialization and (de)coding have not been researched in the placemaking and identity formation process of an urban redevelopment project so far. It is, however, of importance to continue researching how assemblage theory can provide a novel methodological framework for approaching urban practices (McFarlane, 2011; Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015; Paicu, 2016). Here, the theoretical concepts of (de)territorialization and (de)coding show that a conceptualization of
assemblage theory is fit to provide new insights into the “degree” of the socio-material expression that is necessary for approaching urban matters.
Third, this research deploys a stronger visual focus for a more practical approach on assemblage theory. As images are just a different form of data, yet, indispensable from any urban project, it is essential to not only focus on textual but on the visual substance. In order to really explore the case study, it is essential to dive into the world of meaning where actors allocate value to different socio-material entities. Additionally, form (territorialization) and expression (coding) are both better approached using visual data, as every material entity brings a collective or personal meaning with it. Here, my research builds upon a novel way of communicating the visual results, for they will also be presented in a visual and not solely in a written form (i.e. Billger, Thuvander & Wästberg, 2016; Mueller, Lu, Chirkin, Klein & Schmitt, 2018; Rose, 2016). Earlier visual approaches on the complexity of place in an urban context have, for instance, been created by methods like urban mapping (Billger, Thuvander & Wästberg, 2016; Muminovic, 2019). I consider this “combination of artistic and scientific processes” (van Leeuwen & Jewitt, 2001, p. 59) as essential when complex, theoretical concepts are brought into urban practice. Moreover, theories become much more approachable when conceptualized and show richer insights into the assemblage system when they are visually explanatory (Billger, Thuvander & Wästberg, 2016; Muminovic, 2019). Within the contemporary discussions of scholars on assemblage theory there is an undeniable need for a stronger conceptualization and practical application (i.e. Anderson & McFarlane, 2011; Araabi & McDonald, 2019; Buchanan, 2015; Buchanan, 2017; DeLanda, 2006; Dovey, 2012; Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015; Paicu, 2016). Here, for instance, the prevalence of the commonly depicted double axis within research articles is insufficient in its visual description of the implications of assemblage
theory (DeLanda, 2006; Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015; Paicu, 2016). Additionally, the
conceptualization lacks a more practical approach on urban sites, including topics like placemaking and place identity.
Fourth, this case study combines a creative and interdisciplinary approach, connecting landscape architecture and human geography with assemblage theory by focusing on its practical application on a contemporary urban redevelopment project in the Netherlands. This scientific relevance expresses the need for a creative intersection of those disciplines so practices of urban planning, like placemaking, can successfully implemented and flourish. Today, more and more institutions and local municipalities already try to work interdisciplinary and combine research approaches with practical strategies (Kooijman & Romein, 2007; Van Loon, 2008).
In conclusion, this case study research presents a first step into a more practical application of philosophically and theoretically discussed systems, by offering a creative way of successfully planning and designing within an urban redevelopment project.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Assemblage Theory
2.1.1 Finding the Roots
The mainly philosophical concept of agencement formed by Giles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in 1987 within their book “A thousand plateaus” is the origin of what most scholars now refer to as the concept of assemblage (Nikolic, 2018; Phillips, 2006). Even though agencement has never been completely conceptualized and understood in linear forms, it still carries the root of the connection thinking that is later mostly referred to assemblage thinking (Phillips, 2006). It is undeniable that the translation from agencement over “arrangement of […] connections” (Phillips, 2006, p. 108) to assemblage has caused for a myriad of deployments of the once philosophical concept. Today the discordance is still visible when looking at scholars that express their discontent, arguing that a connection of assemblage theory back to the concept that was once introduced by Deleuze and Guattari is incoherent (Buchanan, 2015; Buchanan, 2017). Though the Deleuzoguattarian approach framed the rhizome-thinking that still informs contemporary socio-spatial theory and concepts, the term assemblage remains insufficiently defined by it (Araabi & McDonald, 2019; Anderson &
McFarlane, 2011; Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015). However, in urban studies we see assemblage as an adapted and re-developed concept of Deleuze’s and Guattari’s agencement, similar to the often used notion of Foucault’s “dispositive” that is now mostly referred to apparatus – a “system of relations that can be established between these elements" (Foucault, 1980, p. 194; Araabi & McDonald, 2019; Nikolic, 2018). Those two terms have informed and changed what assemblage thinking and theory
nowadays mean – both within geography and urban studies (Anderson & McFarlane, 2011; Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015).
Yet, looking into the Deleuzoguattarian ontology, we see its strong non-essentialist and anti-reductionist stance still reflected in the most applied working definition of assemblages as “wholes whose properties emerge from the interaction between parts” (Delanda, 2006, p. 5). Or as Deleuze once pointed out, assemblages are “a multiplicity which is made up of many heterogeneous terms and which establishes liaisons, relations between them across ages, sexes and reigns – different natures” (Deleuze & Parnet, 1987 [1977], p. 69). Assemblages are composed of human and non-human entanglements – they blur lines that exist prior to the understanding of assemblages (Anderson & McFarlane, 2011). Those heterogenous entities can be anything from physical and material things, such as buildings or people to norms, rules and regulations. This general
understanding is visible and translated into all its developments and applications so far, which allows us to place the discussion about semantics aside and focus on its theoretical and practical value. The real challenge today does not lie in tracing the meaning of assemblage in reminiscence of its roots, but in collecting all the knowledge we have gained within theory, conceptualization and practice of assemblage thinking and concentrate on a strong methodology that brings practical value (Anderson & McFarlane, 2011; Dovey, 2012).
2.1.2 A Virtual- Actual Approach on Assemblage Theory
Before I am going to elucidate assemblage theory from a realist-mereological stance, I will shortly subsume the second, more speculative, approach to assemblage theory which is the virtual-actual, first introduced by Deleuze (DeLanda, 2016; Hoffman & Novak, 2017; Massumi, 2002; Müller & Schurr, 2015). It is essential to draw a distinction between both stances, not only to create a coherent picture about how assemblage theory can be applied, but also to illustrate its virtual potential. Here, we find ourselves confronted with the broad realm of everything that is possible within a given assemblage (DeLanda, 2016). Within the assemblage the structure is the “reality of the virtual” (Deleuze & Patton, 1968, p. 209), as it contains a virtual dimension for actualization (Hoffman & Novak, 2017). Thus, the capacity for the virtual in an assemblage is materialized in the structure. However, the actualization might never happen – yet, it lies within an assemblage’s constitution (Hoffman & Novak, 2017). Or as Massumi (2002, p. 30) frames the virtual it is the “pressing crowd of incipencies and tendencies, is a realm of potential”. This, however, does not imply that the virtual is not real (DeLanda, 2016). That something is not, or never will, be actualized does not mean that its disposition implies an outside or even unattached part of the real object, entity or assemblage (DeLanda 2016; Hoffman & Novak, 2017; Müller & Schurr, 2015). If we apply this metaphysical construct to more concrete situation, we can view cities as assemblage’s whose virtuality bears the
“ever-present potential for breakdown” (Müller & Schurr, 2015, p. 222). Deleuze & Guattaria (1987) use the example of war as an analogy to demonstrate how the virtual “unleashes all its forces and unpredictability, turning existing orders upside down” (Müller & Schurr, 2015, p. 223).
Besides the notation of the virtual, another term was introduced by Bruno Latour & Emilie Hermant (1998) in their book Paris ville invisible (Paris: Invisible City), which is ‘plasma’. The plasma is everything that has not been formed, identified or actualized – yet, it is real (Müller & Schurr, 2015). Both terms convey a similar meaning that is often neglected when engaging with assemblage theory. Scholars tend to “stress the actual, rather than the virtual side of assemblages” (Müller & Schurr, 2015, p. 220), for the latter is not expected to change the deployment of assemblage thinking within an urban context.
2.1.3 A Theory of Gathering, Emergence and Fragility
Now, turning to the realist-mereological stance of assemblage theory we are, again, confronted with its complexity. The strongest gain and hindrance of assemblage theory are in fact the very same, namely that “there is no single correct way to deploy [it]” (Anderson & McFarlane, 2011, p. 124). Whereas on the one hand, multiple scholars portent that this has caused for confusion and misperception, especially in the realm of urban thinking (i.e. Brenner et al., 2011; Buchanan, 2015; Farias, 2011; Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015), others focus on the creative potential this openness brings to contemporary urban practice (i.e. Anderson & McFarlane, 2011; Dovey, 2012; McFarlane, 2011) as it has the capacity of “complex issues where a linear cause and effect relationship does not sufficiently reflect the actual context” (Araabi & McDonald, 2019, p.180). Assemblage as a multi-everything is then a construct of different relating entities and their
multiplicity, connections and flows, while embracing their changeability and vagueness. The coming together of the different entities in an assemblage means that they form a whole, whose emergent properties are greater than the sum of the independent entities (DeLanda, 2010). Yet, the
assemblage cannot be understood in a final form, since it is subject of continuous change. The entities external relations form a constant flow of new connections, combinations and vanishing relations that affect the assemblage (DeLanda, 2010). Those relations of exteriority, that describe the autonomy of the different entities, are what makes them an assemblage and not a totality. A totality implicates that the parts cannot exist independently outside from their prior relations, which is due to their mere reduction on relations of interiority (DeLanda, 2010). Therefore, assemblages’ entities can be understood as modules that can be attached, subtracted or reattached within new forming connections. This is not only a certain way of thinking about bodies, but also draws back on a strong anti-structuralist position. Within a structuralist framework the relations of interiority would be
foundational, whereas assemblages allow us to neither define or conceptualize an entity entirely by an outside, nor by an inside (DeLanda, 2010; Nail, 2017).
Drawing on Anna Tsing (2015, p. 23) "Assemblages are open-ended gatherings. They allow us to ask about communal effects without assuming them. They show us potential histories in the making". This form of explorational thinking was already studied by famous scholars like Jane Jacobs and Christoph Alexander, who were researching socio-spatial networks within the more and more complex city (Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015). In order to understand the processes of assemblages McFarlane (2009) summarized three orientations that are later completed by a fourth (Anderson & McFarlane, 2011). These are depicted in the following graphic.
Illustration 1: Collected illustration of assemblage processes based on the concepts of McFarlane (2009) and Anderson & McFarlane (2011), translated into a graphic devised by the author (Maria Ernst, 2020)
What those orientations bring to research is the potential of moving beyond “spatial master concepts” (McFarlane, 2009; p. 564) and a novel way of thinking about possible futures (McFarlane, 2011). Especially within critical urbanism this approach provides a toolbox for new imaginaries where
we can view an urban phenomenon within a constant changing process of construction, stabilization and destabilization (McFarlane, 2011). The critical aspect lies within the arising opportunities of transformation or alternative ways of re-assembling not only social entities, but also material entities (Anderson & McFarlane, 2011; Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015). Assemblages can then be
conceptualized for “explain[ing] the existence of things in the world” (Buchanan, 2017; p. 463) by mapping their processes and structures. This is already a first indicator of how one can use assemblage theory for a more practical application.
2.1.4 The Two Main Concepts of Assemblage Theory: (De)Territorialization and (De)Coding
Before thinking about applying assemblage theory to practice, it is helpful to think about the elements of assemblage thinking that can be conceptualized to become a methodological tool. In my research, emphasis is given to the concept of territorialization and deterritorialization, as well as coding and decoding. Those two concepts or parameters are composing what Deleuze and later DeLanda (2010) refer to as double articulation or simply how certain components come together as an assemblage. The first articulation comprises the material or spatial aspects that can be stabilized and destabilized within an entity, like actions, spaces, bodies but also habits and spatial boundaries (DeLanda, 2010). The second articulation contains expressive aspects of meaning, like language or words, ideas and representations that can bind people but also create values, norms and identities that separate people (DeLanda, 2010). Besides the discoursive aspects, coding touches the realm of semiotics, where it is about scripting on the basis of communication. However, those two
articulations of content and expression are not opposed (Araabi & McDonald, 2019). A street, for example, is material but at the same time it is also expressive in form of identity, history and shared values that all make it that specific street (Dovey, 2010). Hence, coding is directly linked to the “emergence of expressive elements that stabilize the identity of an assemblage” (Lagendijk, van Driessche, de Haan, Ache, 2019, p. 6). This assemblage does not indicate any form of dialectic, but the opposite – it connects expression with materiality, something we can, for example, use as a conceptualization for researching placemaking and place identity (Dovey, 2010).
“Assemblages emerge through territorialization processes when connections between entities produce an arrangement that functions in a specific way” (Araabi & McDonald, 2019, p. 176). This arrangement is territorialized when its form becomes firmer and more stable (Araabi &
McDonald, 2019). Those rigid boundaries can then exclude or include people as well as close or open a certain area (Dovey, 2010). In a way this refers to the homogenization of an assemblage between its component’s parts, where a specific identity shapes a strong territorial boarder (DeLanda, 2010). This could either mean that a strong line is drawn between a certain community that ascribes themselves a specific identity while it rejects others (expressive), or that physical boundaries or
fences are erected (material). Both, expressive and material entities can be the reason for a certain change from within or from outside the assemblage. Deterritorializing effects dissolve
homogenization and destabilize the once rigid construction (DeLanda, 2010). Just like with
territorialization processes those forms can appear subtlety over a period, transform consciously or change radically. Besides forming new connection, deterritorializing processes can challenge or even change discourses – they can, for example, alter a state of being to a state of becoming (Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015; McFarlane, 2011). They can undo existing structures and shape new ideas and novel ways of thinking, doing and creating (Araabi & McDonald, 2019). According to Araabi & McDonald (2019, p. 178, 181) those processes are inevitable, as “becoming reflects the ever-changing nature of entities [and] nothing remains new or alternative for ever”. Applied to urban practice and build environments, (de)territorialization can be viewed “partially synonymous with place” (Dovey, 2012, p. 364) and place identity.
(De)coding refers to norms in a society that influence thinking, perception and acting (Araabi & McDonald, 2019). However, the concept of (de)coding is a bit blurrier, especially when elucidated next to (de)territorialization. Three reasons account for the confusion that is visible in contemporary research around assemblages. First, there is a remarkable difference when it comes to the visual depiction of the concept of assemblage. DeLanda (2006) uses the double axis where
(de)territorialization is noted, but (de)coding is not. One could argue here that DeLanda (2006) indirectly depicted coding on the vertical axis by writing “Sociality [and] Express” (in Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015, p. 403). If this would, however, be the case, the seemingly opposing site of the same axis would not be “Spatiality [and] Materiality” (in Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015, p. 403), but
Decoding. Therefore, it does not follow the conceptual logic of the horizontal axis either way.
Second, there also seems to be a debate about whether (de)coding even is a parameter and concept of assemblage. Araabi & McDonald (2019, p. 181) denote codes “as a means for
territorialization” and therefore reject the idea of (de)coding being a parameter next to
(de)territorialization. Thirdly, when arguing that “assemblage theory is against a priori reduction of sociality/spatiality to any fixed forms/set of forms in terms of processes or relations” (Kamalipour & Peimani 2015, p. 403) it becomes clear that the graphical output of the double axis does neither suffice nor meet the pretensions of their theoretical notion. If all aspects influence each other in non-linear and non-opposing ways, it is questionable why a depiction in form of a double axis was
maintained as a choice of conceptualization. It can only be assumed that the depiction stems from a philosophical interest in the fourfold, based on the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. Heidegger considered any form of happenstance as a result from its prior fourfold condition which made the event possible in the first place (Martinon, 2019). Indeed, this ontological perspective creates a remarkable overlap with the two concepts of assemblage theory, also aiming for a conceptualization of how things come together (DeLanda, 2010). Yet, the assemblage’s conceptual representation of the double articulation comes with several qualms and can be adapted for more intelligibility.
2.1.5 A New Conceptualization – Overcoming the Double Axis
As I have stated before I see the general depiction of the conceptualization of assemblages as misleading. Their multiplicity and complexity are also not met by choosing for a two (mutually
perpendicular) axes illustration that resembles the cartesian coordinate system. Subsequently, wrong assumptions about the interconnectivity of the respective axes can be made. Especially the
supposition that along one axis you have a positive- (adding factors) and negative- (subtracting factors) dimension of any exploring unit or entity is misleading, as no calculatable logic can be applied to the assemblage concept. The problem here does not lie within the horizontal axis of deterritorialization (destabilization) and territorialization (stabilization), which could be understood along one determining axis, but within the illustration of the vertical axis. Whereas the horizontal axis was reproduced by multiple scholars, the vertical axis was adapted and changed within different studies, adding (de)coding parameters to sociality/expression (DeLanda, 2006; Dovey, 2010; Paicu, 2016). Moreover, the vertical axis suggests that sociality/expression are opposed to
spatiality/materiality, which is indeed not the case. Even though DeLanda (2006) asserts that in his text he, nevertheless, makes use of a graphic that indicates polarity.
Proper visualization is essential when explaining a conceptual framework within research (Longtin, 2010). We live in a visual culture where scientific knowledge construction is focusing more on images, graphics and depictions than on the written text itself (Rose, 2016). Even though images do have their own agency and need to be treated with caution regarding their purpose and content,
they also have the potential of communicating data or knowledge more clearly (Enago, 2018). Additionally, they can be helpful when confronted with complex concepts or systems like we see within assemblage theory. They build understanding and enhance creative ways of thinking (Enago, 2018). Subsequently, presenting a rigid concept of assemblage (double axis) is not the right way of embarking on research that is inherently complex and pliable. Therefore, I am suggesting a
conceptualization of the double articulation within an assemblage in a different way.
Illustration 3: A new conceptualization of the double articulation in assemblage theory (Maria Ernst, 2020)
This new visual conceptualization builds upon the “abstract machine” that was already introduced as a metaphorical description by Deleuze and Guattari (1987). Here the abstract machine frames the abstract condition of an assemblage “not a thing or object that exists in the world, but rather something that lays out a set of relations wherein concrete elements and agencies appear’’ (Nail, 2017, p.24). Whereas the concept stays quite abstract the metaphor of a machine is useful when engaging in assemblage thinking. Here the assemblage can be changed with two rotary knobs, similar to a camera, which form the double articulation. Through adapting the socio-material
finetuning of the assemblage, by increasing or reducing the “degree” of territorialization and coding, a different assemblage is actualized. Some scholars like Araabi & McDonald (2019) view coding as a means for territorialization, while others consider coding as an equal conceptualization that happens in planning and design practice before (de)territorialization. Coding selects a certain form of
actualizations, yet, completely decoded we would not have a socio-material expression at all. Thus, in my concept the adjustment for coding is embedded in the rotary knob of (de)territorialization, for both are interdependent and needed for the articulation of form and substance. They create a system where the interplay is essential. Kim Dovey (2010) talks about complex adaptive system theory when taking about a certain arrangement. Within this system the different parts or entities are both dependent and interdependent on each other (Dovey, 2010). Every slight change within an entity could lead to a re-assembling act or change in performance (Dovey, 2010).
Yet, there are two important factors that need to be taken into account when going from complex adaptive systems to complex adaptive assemblages: resilience and redundancy (Dovey, 2010). Every assemblage has a dynamic where changes can constantly occur. Yet, an urban assemblage projects a certain image or identity to the outside or inside world, depending on its emerged components. The capacity of adapting, changing and reassembling within a given identity (or wanted identity) without losing that characteristic is called resilience. Redundancy is necessary not only to enhance resilience but is also the ability of the assemblages’ entities to perform a multiplicity of functions (Dovey, 2010). It is about adaptation or back-up plans that ensure proper functioning when change is occurring. What makes urban assemblages successful can be found within an optimal balance of resilience and redundancy, together creating a dynamic stability (Dovey, 2010). This dynamic stability is one essential urban planning goal that is also part of the NYMA assemblage. The NYMA aims for a strong identity that is ensured over the course of time, while parts of the assemblage are supposed to change and re-arrange themselves. It is interesting to see how the concepts of assemblage theory can help to create a more successful and intentional placemaking.
2.1.6 Assemblage Theory in Practice: Placemaking and Identity
In order to close the research gap that exists between Deleuzian theory and its application to build environments we need to extend the philosophical and theoretical concept to a methodological tool (Dovey, 2010). Especially within the field of urban studies assemblage can be used as a “way of thinking […] to provide a theoretical lens for understanding the complexity of the city problems by emphasising the relations between sociality and spatiality at different scales” (Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015, p.402). If assemblage theory is mainly about socio-material change it cannot be simply viewed with a theoretical lens but must be placed into a practical context (Dovey, 2012). Dovey (2012, p. 364) emphasizes that assemblage in urban context “can be usefully seen as partially synonymous with ‘place’”. Place identity, for example, is not a thing but a collection of entities that can be both material and expressive, and it is their connections and properties that create this identity
(assemblage) (Dovey, 2010; Dovey, 2012). This assemblage can have actual effects, for example influencing how people feel or identify with a place, but also how material elements and structures allow for change (Buchanan, 2017). With the concepts of (de)territorialization and (de)coding it becomes more clear which elements strive for change and which persist in their being and how subsequently they influence the identity assemblage (Buchanan, 2017).
What I consider one of the strongest features of assemblage is its option for choosing a more creative methodology (Araabi & McDonalds, 2019). Creativity does not only lead to the production of new connections between ideas that have not been examined together yet, but it also lies within creativity to be inherently challenging to everything we know. Its boundlessness and novel
approaches contest old structures or taken-for-granted assumptions and create room for re-assembling forms (Dovey, 2010). Moreover, assemblage theory in practice is therefore best applied to urban areas that are “unfinished, cultural/physical, constitutive, socio-material,
subjective/objective, and tricky” (Kamalipour & Peimani 2015, p.405). The NYMA, as an in-process redevelopment project provides the ideal case study for exploring how assemblages’ concepts support placemaking and the questions of identity.
2.1.7 A Short Comparison: Assemblage Theory & Actor-Network Theory
Within the field of human geography and urban planning we see actor-network theory (ANT) as a quite similar research approach when it comes to the complexity and interconnections between human and non-human actors (Farias, 2009). Both see the connecting and relating actants (ANT) or entities (Assemblage Theory) as a driving factor in socio-material processes, offering tools to study and reflect on build environment within social constructivism (Farias, 2009; Rydin, 2012). Here, however, ANT misses to elucidate associations of the actants beyond their connections or nodes, while assemblage theory anticipates that entities have properties beyond their associations (Müller & Schurr, 2015). This is what DeLanda (2010) refers to as relations of exteriority and what makes an assemblage differ from a totality. ANT focuses on those nodes that are already established and does therefore not anticipate the unexpected, which plays a key role in assemblage theory (Müller & Schurr, 2015). Another difference is that assemblage theory does not only open up the realm of the actual as ANT does, but also the realm of the possible. Meaning everything that can be comprised in the virtual-actual approach formed by Deleuze (DeLanda, 2016; Hoffman & Novak, 2017; Massumi, 2002; Müller & Schurr, 2015). While ANT focuses on the present entities and its already formed relations, assemblage theory opens up a world of potentialities and virtual capacities for
re-assembling and disre-assembling (Müller & Schurr, 2015). Therefore, the redevelopment of the NYMA case study in this research would not be adequately approached with ANT, as the tools given cannot provide a framework keeping up with everyday changes within the assemblage.
It has also been criticized that ANT is less of a theory and more of an actant-rhizome
ontology (Farias, 2009). However, this rhizomatic ontology is also visible within assemblage urbanism and has been criticized by Brenner, Madden & Wachsmuth (2011). They argue for a more
theoretically concrete and practical engagement with urbanism in order to create new methods for “thought and action” (Brenner et al., 2011, p. 227). Here, assemblage theory goes beyond a rhizomatic ontology and focuses more on rhizomatic processes as a concept and as a visual representation of multiplicity (Araabi & McDonald, 2019; Dovey, 2010). For the explorational case study in this research, assemblage theory provides the most flexible and creative methodological toolbox open for change and new becoming.
2.1.8 A Short Comparison: Assemblage Theory & Critical Urban Theory
Critical urban theory (CUT) is based on Marxist theory and focuses on social change in the city with an emphasis on issues of capitalism, inequality, poverty or injustice (Brenner et al., 2011). Here we can already see similarities with assemblage theory, as assemblages offer a way of “acting towards a more socially just and ecologically sound urbanism” (McFarlane, 2011, p. 205) too. Critical urban thinking focuses on the actual and the possible, just as assemblage theory does as well
(Buchanan, 2017; Kamalipour & Peimani, 2015; McFarlane, 2011). However, in contrast to CUT, assemblage thinking stresses the process of reassembling “by emphasising how urbanism might be produced otherwise […] assemblage thinking makes us consider how an alternative world might be assembled” (McFarlane, 2011, p. 211). The sole focus of CUT on mechanisms of capitalism,
bureaucracy or the state are pre-defined abstract terms that are hardly negotiable (McFarlane, 2011
).
Acuto and Curtis (2014, p.7) claim that ‘’assemblage theory’s most obvious promise is that it rules out such reification: it seeks to replace such abstractions with concrete histories of theprocesses by which entities are formed and made to endure’’. Within assemblage theory we can think and act more freely by rejecting those things as predefined terms, driven by a certain set of factors. Drawing on Farias (2011, p. 406) assemblage thinking is more “about inquiry and explorative engagement rather than power/knowledge/ideology-based critique”. As researchers we can be more sensitive to the “context of context” (Brenner et al., 2011, p.225) in which we make observations or collect data to not experience the pitfall of limiting the research in favour of “naïve objectivism”.
2.2 Placemaking
2.2.1 Overcoming Orthodox Planning Practices
For long we have seen and learned about planning practices where cities are perceived as controllable objects. Impelled by a masterplan, cities were treated as machines that can be programmed to work in a certain order (Gray, 2016). Those approaches, popular until the 50s and 60s (e.g. blueprint planning), can be summarized under orthodox planning practices (Hirt & Zahm, 2012). They were characterized by centrally organized top-down plans, a practice for instance applied by Ebenezer Howard. Not only Howard’s Garden City idea, but also the celebrated concepts of Le Corbusier and his ‘Ville Radieuse’ (Radiant City) are subject to the supposition that functioning masterplans arise through tabula rasa planning and therefore, completely rejecting local knowledge and the everyday context of places (Hirt & Zahm, 2012). It was only in 1961 when a new planning paradigm was born. Jane Jacobs and her notable book “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” (1961) revolutionized urban planning while criticizing the work of architects that deemed cities as pre-packed, standardized and homogenous objects where plans and design can be pressed upon. At the heart of Jacobs post-modern approach on urban planning are ideas that still inform placemaking
theory and practice today (Edmonds, 2017; Hirt & Zahm, 2012; Stokes, Baumann, Bar & Caldwell, 2017). The success of her publication is explained as it “highlights a problem that has long plagued classical architecture and planning: the difficulty of balancing abstract professional knowledge with specific local knowledge” (Hirth & Zahm, 2012, p. 219). On the one hand, planning is about spatiality and often sought to be understood through model building. On the other hand, planning must also comprise the lived experience of everyday urban life (Hirth & Zahm, 2012). According to Jacobs, dogmatic planning has failed to meet the latter. Moreover, it has failed to regard the city and its inherent complexity at the social level, where people meet, interact and shape urban places themselves (Edmonds, 2017). The consequence of this hegemonic approach to urban spaces is that cities lack to meet the needs of communities while overlooking chances of creating local value and vivid spaces (Hirt & Zahm, 2012). However, when people are empowered to take charge and shape their own environment, those places become an identity that is valued within its local context (Hirth & Zahm, 2012; Lang, 2017; Stokes et al., 2017). Moreover, cities cannot be understood and planned in homogenous terms, but need to be explored in their heterogeneity with an emphasis on micro-public experience and behaviour (Lang, 2017).
Those very issues that were previously neglected, have been addressed by a range of iconic scholars like William H. Whyte, Kevin Lynch or Jan Gehl (Stokes et. al, 2017). Whyte, a sociologist and urbanist, focuses on social life on smaller scale urban spaces, observing patterns and needs of humans in daily urban life (Whyte, 1980). Lynch, an urban planner and architect, is known for studying physical elements of the city that give “qualities which relate to the attributes of identity and structure” (1960, p. 9). In his book “Image of the City” (1960) placemaking is strongly interwoven with the image of a city, where identity is needed to sustain a socially and economically successful urban area. The Danish architect and urban planner Jan Gehl, who picks up the threads from Jacobs, Whyte and Lynch, views urban spaces in terms of placemaking practices and their specific finetuning (Gehl & Svarre, 2013). Like previous scholars, he focuses on small scale urban elements like edges, paths, seating elements, thresholds or human activities (Gehl, 2010). His urban vocabulary builds the framework that stretches over the gap of the previously “abstract imagined space and the social experience of the city” (Hirth & Zahm, 2012, p. 219). Gehl’s research has put emphasis on the psychological effects of urban elements and, therefore, their planning and design at the very centre of urban thinking. Starting with the human scale of how people create lived spaces, he works from that stance further to the spatiality and only after that onto the buildings, turning the traditional planning order upside down (Gehl, 2010). Moreover, Gehl reveals the ingredients for vivid places with visual examples and sketches that reflect the basic elements of Jacobs earlier work. The emotional realm of experiencing cities in general and public spaces in specific, cannot be viewed apart from urban planning and design practices (Hirth & Zahm, 2012; Gehl, 2010). This new practice
of valuing place- and situated knowledge is the origin of placemaking (Hirth & Zahm, 2012; Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995).
2.2.2 Placemaking as the New Planning Paradigm
Today, placemaking reflects the range of ideas that have been developed by those very scholars, internalized in a new planning paradigm of how we think about cities, places and people (Hirth & Zahm, 2012). I have already elucidated how the general narrative of Jacobs early
publications is “grounded in the theory and practice of placemaking” (Hirth & Zahm, 2012, p. 216). Her research portrays placemaking as a way of experiencing and making sense of the city – a form of appropriation done by the residents or the community (Koolmees, Koudstaal & Majoor, 2014). Placemaking cannot be reached through masterplans and architects but must be done with
sensitivity to place and the knowledge of those who have appropriated the spaces before and will in the future (Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995). For there is not one specific recipe of how to do
placemaking (Thomas, 2016). Nor is there a single, universal definition. Mark A. Wyckoff (2014, p.2) defines placemaking as the “process of creating quality places that people want to live, work, play and learn in”. Further, Wyckoff (2014, p.2) adds that placemaking creates “places that people care about and want to be in. That is because those places have a strong sense of place”. This connection Wyckoff (2014) draws between placemaking and the place identity or sense of place is a common relation drawn by multiple other scholars (Adelakun, 2017; Gieseking et al., 2014; Seamon, 2019; SEGD, 2014). Additionally, “placemaking is both a process and a philosophy” (PPS, 2016, p. 18) at the same time. In order to understand its ambiguity and components it is useful to clarify what place contains – not only in a spatial but also social context. First, place already indicates a focus on smaller scale, the locale (Lang, 2017). Second, place always needs to be seen in relation to human
interaction, thus, in the light of creating sense (Hirth & Zahm, 2012; Lang, 2017). Third, the ‘making’ includes knowledge of lived spaces and highlights the location as the physical space (Edmonds, 2017; Lang, 2017). Scholars like Cilliers & Timmermans (2014, p.414) focus on those interplays, stating that urban “places are spaces with meaning”. Consequently, they are considered “dialogic spaces” (Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995, p. 6) that “strive […] for the wellbeing of human life” (Hirth & Zahm, 2012, p. 224). For Jacobs this dialogic space is created through three means: confirmation,
interrogation and action framing (Hirth & Zahm, 2012). A dialogue is created through decision making processes, where the choices and physical interventions are being studied. The methods of placemaking and its ethical implications can give answers to goals, power distribution and how a community can be better involved in placemaking practices (Edmonds, 2017; Hirth & Zahm, 2012).
In a consequence, placemaking refers to the action of “inspiring people to collectively reimagine and reinvent public spaces [in a] collaborative process […] in order to maximize shared
value” (PPS, 2016, p. ii). If placemaking is implemented successfully, a place offers a multiplicity of activities to a wide range of people, supports creative expression and experiment, or reflects the local and historic character in a vivid environment (Bennett, 2014; PPS, 2016). Yet, placemaking is no panacea and should in no case be treated as such. Also, there is a multiplicity of ideas and structures that have proven to be positive, even though their tools and effectiveness cannot simply be applied in a different context (Lang, 2017; Markusen & Nicodemus, 2010). However, urban studies have shown that it is essential to start placemaking with a strong vision of what is to be achieved, while being in contact with local experts and partners (PPS, 2016). Focusing on the status quo by the means of observations or active participation, helps to create a first image. Of course, there will always be mixed ideas and imaginations of urban spaces, therefore, it is important to also learn about social tensions or difficulties in a place (Koolmees et al., 2014). Especially “problem-based initiatives” (Koolmees et al., 2014, p. 146) can have a huge impact on the community, for instance, by creating a safer, more vivid area, that simultaneously enhances economic development of run-down areas (Edmonds, 2017; Markusen & Nicodemus, 2010). The urban planner Patsy Healy talks about placemaking as a form of new, democratic planning practice (Koolmees et al., 2014). She states “people get involved because they have a sense of a changing society. They are also thinking: we are not just creating another way of doing governance, we are also producing things of value to the community, which would otherwise not be produced” (Koolmees et al., 2014, p. 147). Supporting local businesses and making spaces accessible for multi-functional use, is one example of creating a unique and place sensitive character (Lang, 2017). The tools of placemaking are diverse and can reach from action initiatives of private to public stakeholders to unique collaborations (Lang, 2017). Additionally, the time frame of a project, initiative, event or performance can vary between
temporality and permanency, depending on the goal and character of the place (Lang, 2017).
2.2.3 Placemaking within the Creative City Discourse
For most scholars placemaking is seen in combination with the cultural sector, this is to say art projects, creative events or performances (creative placemaking). Yet, economic forms of
placemaking like organizing markets for food or handcraft can also lead to the appropriation of urban spaces (Bennett, 2014; Lang, 2017; PPS, 2016). Especially tactical urbanism has become a favourable term and action to create placemaking in cities. Those interventions are temporary, but with the goal of having a long-term influence on the place or the area. Parklets, mobile beaches, urban gardening modules and urban labs are within the most common and internationally applied practices of tactical urbanism. The advantage of temporary projects lies within their uncomplicated and mostly non-costly nature, but also in their opportunity for experimentation, trial and error testing and flexibility
(Lang, 2017). Being inclusive and easily accessible are also prerequisites to create communal and place sensitive value.
Under the term of creative placemaking all forms of actions, activities, programs or interventions that enhance the liveability of a place or area, as well as generating economic profit, are summarized (Markusen & Nicodemus, 2010). Its aim is to improve urban structures, like streets, or place safety issues while bringing diverse people together to actively create, participate or celebrate in a form of activity or program (Edmonds, 2017; Markusen & Nicodemus, 2014). Again, a vision is essential to not only measure the success afterwards and therefore re-evaluate and improve placemaking, but also to make sure who benefits and what is hoped to be achieved (Markusen & Nicodemus, 2014). Multiple scholars (i.e. Edmonds 2017; Markusen & Nicodemus 2014; Stokes et al. 2017) emphasize that the value of creative placemaking should be used to expand opportunities for low-income communities, people of colour, artists or marginalized districts. Here we also see that placemaking is strongly discoursive, not only in theory but also in practice (Edmonds, 2017). Especially within the global trend of creative and cultural spaces, it is important to note that local approaches often mirror that general ideas of what creativity is supposed to bring to a space or area. Global and local scales must be understood relationally, where local practices are often formed by discursive idea about creative strategies – often happening unconsciously (Nicolini, 2012; Prince, 2012). Here, a dilemma has risen in the last decade where creativity has become a measurable and quantifiable product (e.g. Creativity Index, Tech-Pole Index, Diversity Index etc.) that sold itself to cities with the promise of an “apparent universality”, making creativity a reproducible commodity (Prince, 2012). Even though creative placemaking has therewith taken an important role in political calculi and place branding while mainly being connotated with positive and promising words or emotions (e.g. vibrant place, creative space, enhancing liveability etc.), it is of uttermost importance that this trend must be understood as highly discoursive (Edmonds, 2017; Prince, 2012). There is no single creative strategy that works in every city and in every urban space. Subsequently, placemaking comes with a certain agenda that then also selects for the right “degree and type of creativity” (Landry, 2002, p. 14), acknowledging that the local situation needs to be understood within the framework of a unique socio-material assemblage. However, there is a risk of globally informed trends on creative city practices being blindly applied as placemaking in a specific local context (Mould, 2015; Prince, 2012). Drawing from the creative city discourse onto small scale placemaking practices is often done unconsciously, subsequentially missing to seize the chance of connecting placemaking strategies with already grown roots (Prince, 2012). This makes it inevitably harder for placemaking to connect with the sense of the place or the identity, failing to answer the needs of the local context. Here, placemaking is often used as a sheer economic tool for place branding and marketing purposes, even used synonymously with the latter (Lang, 2017).
On the other hand, if applied with place sensitivity, placemaking has proven to mirror the local assets while connecting the community to the material side of the place (Visser, 2012). Integrating culture and arts in urban planning gives heritage a new expression while maintaining its history (Edmonds, 2018). Conjointly, it is a tool in planning to improve and activate redevelopment areas, former abandoned buildings or to aim for the creation of a new local economy or brand (Edmonds, 2017). “It holds the promise of creating an essence. Identifying, elevating, or assembling a collection of visual, cultural, social, and environmental qualities, that imbue a location with meaning and significance” (Edmonds, 2017, p. 41). Here, place branding overcomes its often negatively perceived nature as something only done for economic profit. As Lang (2017, p. 20) points out, it is also the “means for reinforcing local identity and identification of the citizen with their place”. Branding can help to form a strong narrative about the place and the way it is presented, placing it on the map (Lang, 2017). Embedding this story in placemaking projects can make participation more appealing and support civic engagement within an inclusive process (Lang, 2017).
2.2.4 Small Scale Placemaking
In light of the application of placemaking, it has become evident that no single toolkit can be applied to overcome a certain problem or to reach a specific goal. Yet, case study research has shown that there are different realms that need to be brought together. First, there is the physical side: the buildings, the streets, the squares. Second, there is the social aspect of the inhabitants, community, or the visitors – an identity or sense of place so to say. This can also include the history and former development of a place, as well as already being connected to a future vision. Third, there is the digital realm of an urban space (Stokes et al., 2017). Digital mediation has become an indispensable part of how we shape, experience and communicate urban places. Material forms like landmarks or monumental building often become “authentic” representations of the space itself. Embedded in “networked storytelling”, it has the power to create a strong sense of place or identity that shapes program, activities and target groups (Stokes et al., 2017). All those dimensions that assemble a public space need to be considered when generating actions and strategies for placemaking (PPS, 2016).
Small-scale interventions have proven to not only being cheap, easy to organize and participatory, but also valuable for evaluation and experimental approaches of placemaking (Gehl, 2010; PPS, 2016). Derek Thomas (2016, p. i) emphasises that bringing in the end-user, the community or those people that will finally make use of the space, often have the “most valuable perspective and insights into how public space should function”. The non-profit organization Project for Public Spaces (PPS) focuses on placemaking movements and subsumes that all the ingredients that add up to successful small-scale placemaking are connected to each other. Here, social aspects not only
