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.