2017
Harteveld, Maurice
The Quest for Public Space: Changing Values in Urban Design, The City as Learning Lab and Living Lab Proceedings Article
In: Tieben, Hendrik; Geng, Yan; Rossin, Francesco (Ed.): The Entrepreneurial City; 10th Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU), International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU), Rotterdam, 2017, ISBN: 978-962-8272-33-4.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: design for agency, design for democracy, design for inclusion, participatory design, public space, theme:value-change, urban design, value dynamics, value frameworks in urban design, value:democracy
@inproceedings{Harteveld2017,
title = {The Quest for Public Space: Changing Values in Urban Design, The City as Learning Lab and Living Lab},
author = {Maurice Harteveld},
editor = {Hendrik Tieben and Yan Geng and Francesco Rossin},
url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321875935_The_Quest_for_Public_Space_Changing_Values_in_Urban_Design_The_City_as_Learning_Lab_and_Living_Lab},
isbn = {978-962-8272-33-4},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-12-01},
urldate = {2017-12-01},
booktitle = {The Entrepreneurial City; 10th Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU)},
publisher = {International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU)},
address = {Rotterdam},
abstract = {This article highlights the dynamics of values in our reasoning on public space. By means of an epistemological study, it tests the contemporary premises underlying our ways to safeguard the inclusive, democratic, agential city, and, as such, it aims to update our view on urban design. The article raises three subsequent questions:
[i] Is the city our common house as perceived from the Renaissance onward, containing all, and consequently are public spaces used by the people as a whole?
[ii] Is the city formalising our municipal autonomy as emphasised since the Enlightenment, in an anti-egoistic manner, and in this line, are public spaces owned by local governments representing the people? And,
[iii] is the city open to our general view as advocated in Modern reasoning, restricting entrepreneurial influences, and synchronically, is its public spaces seen and/or known by everyone?
Inclusiveness, democracy, agentiality are strongholds in our scientific thinking on public space and each issue echoes through in the practice on urban design. Yet, in an aim to keep cities connected and accessible, fair and vital, and open and social, conflicts appear. Primarily based upon reviewing urban theory and particularly experiencing the Amsterdam for this matter, the answering of questions generates remarks on this aim. Contemporary Western illuminations on pro-active citizens, participatory societies, and effects of social media and microblogging forecast a more differentiated image of public space and surmise to enforce diversification in our value framework in urban design.},
keywords = {design for agency, design for democracy, design for inclusion, participatory design, public space, theme:value-change, urban design, value dynamics, value frameworks in urban design, value:democracy},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
This article highlights the dynamics of values in our reasoning on public space. By means of an epistemological study, it tests the contemporary premises underlying our ways to safeguard the inclusive, democratic, agential city, and, as such, it aims to update our view on urban design. The article raises three subsequent questions:
[i] Is the city our common house as perceived from the Renaissance onward, containing all, and consequently are public spaces used by the people as a whole?
[ii] Is the city formalising our municipal autonomy as emphasised since the Enlightenment, in an anti-egoistic manner, and in this line, are public spaces owned by local governments representing the people? And,
[iii] is the city open to our general view as advocated in Modern reasoning, restricting entrepreneurial influences, and synchronically, is its public spaces seen and/or known by everyone?
Inclusiveness, democracy, agentiality are strongholds in our scientific thinking on public space and each issue echoes through in the practice on urban design. Yet, in an aim to keep cities connected and accessible, fair and vital, and open and social, conflicts appear. Primarily based upon reviewing urban theory and particularly experiencing the Amsterdam for this matter, the answering of questions generates remarks on this aim. Contemporary Western illuminations on pro-active citizens, participatory societies, and effects of social media and microblogging forecast a more differentiated image of public space and surmise to enforce diversification in our value framework in urban design.
[i] Is the city our common house as perceived from the Renaissance onward, containing all, and consequently are public spaces used by the people as a whole?
[ii] Is the city formalising our municipal autonomy as emphasised since the Enlightenment, in an anti-egoistic manner, and in this line, are public spaces owned by local governments representing the people? And,
[iii] is the city open to our general view as advocated in Modern reasoning, restricting entrepreneurial influences, and synchronically, is its public spaces seen and/or known by everyone?
Inclusiveness, democracy, agentiality are strongholds in our scientific thinking on public space and each issue echoes through in the practice on urban design. Yet, in an aim to keep cities connected and accessible, fair and vital, and open and social, conflicts appear. Primarily based upon reviewing urban theory and particularly experiencing the Amsterdam for this matter, the answering of questions generates remarks on this aim. Contemporary Western illuminations on pro-active citizens, participatory societies, and effects of social media and microblogging forecast a more differentiated image of public space and surmise to enforce diversification in our value framework in urban design.
Robbins, Scott; Henschke, Adam
Designing For Democracy: Bulk Data and Authoritarianism Journal Article
In: Surveillance & Society, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 582-589, 2017.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: algorithmic opacity, democracy, design for democracy, ICT, technical opacity, transparency, value sensitive design, value:democracy
@article{Robbins2017,
title = {Designing For Democracy: Bulk Data and Authoritarianism},
author = {Scott Robbins and Adam Henschke},
url = {https://pure.tudelft.nl/portal/files/24955831/Designing_for_democracy.pdf},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-06-01},
urldate = {2017-06-01},
journal = {Surveillance & Society},
volume = {15},
number = {3},
pages = {582-589},
abstract = {Transparency is important for liberal democracies; however, the value of transparency is difficult to articulate. In this article we
articulate transparency as an instrumental value for providing what we call ensurance and assurance to liberal democratic citizens. Ensurance refers to the property of liberal democracies which prevents it from sliding into authoritarianism and assurance is the property whereby citizens are assured that ensurance exists. Looking at the rise of bulk data collection and use afforded by information communication technologies, this paper focuses on the way that technologies disrupt relations between the state and its citizens, and suggests Value Sensitive Design as a methodology to protect key aspects of liberal democracies. Bulk data collection makes the achieving of ensurance and assurance more difficult due to two types of opacity which arise as a result of the practice: technical opacity — the difficulty for citizens to understand the technology behind bulk data collection; and, algorithmic opacity — opacity which results from properties inherent to algorithms which guide the collection and processing of bulk data. Design requirements will be suggested to respond to the disruptions caused by ICTs between liberal democracies and their citizens which threaten the necessary value for liberal democracies of representativeness.},
keywords = {algorithmic opacity, democracy, design for democracy, ICT, technical opacity, transparency, value sensitive design, value:democracy},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Transparency is important for liberal democracies; however, the value of transparency is difficult to articulate. In this article we
articulate transparency as an instrumental value for providing what we call ensurance and assurance to liberal democratic citizens. Ensurance refers to the property of liberal democracies which prevents it from sliding into authoritarianism and assurance is the property whereby citizens are assured that ensurance exists. Looking at the rise of bulk data collection and use afforded by information communication technologies, this paper focuses on the way that technologies disrupt relations between the state and its citizens, and suggests Value Sensitive Design as a methodology to protect key aspects of liberal democracies. Bulk data collection makes the achieving of ensurance and assurance more difficult due to two types of opacity which arise as a result of the practice: technical opacity — the difficulty for citizens to understand the technology behind bulk data collection; and, algorithmic opacity — opacity which results from properties inherent to algorithms which guide the collection and processing of bulk data. Design requirements will be suggested to respond to the disruptions caused by ICTs between liberal democracies and their citizens which threaten the necessary value for liberal democracies of representativeness.
articulate transparency as an instrumental value for providing what we call ensurance and assurance to liberal democratic citizens. Ensurance refers to the property of liberal democracies which prevents it from sliding into authoritarianism and assurance is the property whereby citizens are assured that ensurance exists. Looking at the rise of bulk data collection and use afforded by information communication technologies, this paper focuses on the way that technologies disrupt relations between the state and its citizens, and suggests Value Sensitive Design as a methodology to protect key aspects of liberal democracies. Bulk data collection makes the achieving of ensurance and assurance more difficult due to two types of opacity which arise as a result of the practice: technical opacity — the difficulty for citizens to understand the technology behind bulk data collection; and, algorithmic opacity — opacity which results from properties inherent to algorithms which guide the collection and processing of bulk data. Design requirements will be suggested to respond to the disruptions caused by ICTs between liberal democracies and their citizens which threaten the necessary value for liberal democracies of representativeness.