Sosiaalisen toiminnan ja kokoontumispaikkojen tilasarja; kollektiivisen muistin ja muistojen kohde
Jokaisen oikeus – tuntemattomien tai ”muukalaisuuden” kohtaamisen paikka
“ To be urban in a true sense, cities should cater for diversity and alterity, allowing for articulation and integration of the Other”
(Panu Lehtovuori, 2010: 1)
Julkista tilaa määrittelee ‘julkinen’, ei ‘tila’ (Rajanti, 1999)
Julkisen tilan määrän ja laadun kehitys? (Montgomery, 2007: 276-279)
Tiiviin katutilan kehittäminen vähäistä II MS jälkeen
Rakennusten suhde katutilaan on pikemminkin etäinen kuin läheinen (esim. kivijalkakaupat, ”eyes on the street”)
Kaupallistuminen -> valvotut puolijulkiset tilat
Uusien julkisten tilojen luominen ja vanhojen kehittäminen vaatimatonta?
” Ylidesign” pikemminkin kuin käyttäjälähtöisyys?
Kolmijako: Ruoppila, Lehtovuori & von Hertzen, 2007 Innovaatiotoiminta – luovuus – kaupunkisuunnittelu kolme lähestymistapaa Fokus Policy Innovatiivinen miljöö Tekijöiden verkostot Kova ja pehmeä infrastruktuuri Suuri ja pieni elinkeinopolitiikka Fyysiset keskittymät ja verkostot Luova kaupunki Urbaani keskeisyys Diversiteetti Suvaitsevaisuus Kohtaamiset Urbaanin edellytykset Raha-draiverin ylikorostumisen uhkien välttely Erityiset paikat Elämyksellisyys Mahdollisuus tehdä Murroskauden tilat Monipuolisuuden suojeleminen (intressien konfliktit vääjäämättömiä)
” If authenticity has a schizoid quality, it can also be deliberately made up of bits and pieces of cultural references : artfully painted graffiti on a shop window, sawdust on the floor of a music bar, an address in a gritty but not too thoroughly crime-ridden part of town. These fictional qualities of authenticity are not ”real”, but they do have a real effect on our imagination of the city, and a real effect as well on new cafés, stores, gentrified places where we like to live and shop. Because the emergence of the term reflects the importance of our roles as cultural consumers who consume the city’s art, food, images and also its real estate , authenticity becomes a tool, along with economic and political power, to control not just the look but also the use of real urban places : neighborhoods, parks, community gardens, shopping streets. Authenticity, then is a cultural form of power over space that puts pressure on the city’s old working class and lower middle class, who can no longer afford to live or work here.” (Zukin, 2010: xiii)
” New tastes displace those of long time residents because they reinforce the images in politicians’ rhetoric of growth, making the city a 24/7 entertainment zone with safe, clean, predictable space and modern, upscale neighbourhoods.” (ibid, p 4)
Silicon Valley in California is the paradigmatic example of an innovative milieu, combining university-based networks, hard-working culture, Asian immigrants, local venture capital, regional job market and ‘garage’ as the iconic / practical locus of start-ups. Other standard example is the fashion and design networks of Emilia Romagna around Milan.
Innovative milieus need both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ elements, e.g. good infrastructures and institutions, combined with favourable local culture.
In urban planning, the idea has led to promoting technopoles and thematic economic corridors.
For instance in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, the “campus network” and “know-how routes” are targeted to produce a technologically innovative region, based on science parks and hard infrastructures.
Certain neighbourhoods, e.g. Arabianranta and Forum Virium in Pasila, are designated as “living laboratories”, in other words everyday test-beds of new products and services. Developing connectivity within the Stockholm Science City is another example.
Even though creative city theories are embraced by both politicians and planners as ‘new’ approach to urban development, these theories are strongly rooted in 1960’s critical comments on mainstream, rationalized urban planning. Jane Jacobs, in The Economy of Cities (1969) claimed that historically, cities have been the origin and engine of innovation and economic growth.
Jacobs holds that innovation is clearly linked to the spatial and social condition of the city – to the chaos, diversity and inefficiency of city life. It is in the dynamics of the city that small companies have the possibility of breaking out of mainstream, and innovating by means of trial and error.
Spatial and temporal niches of innovation: emerging urban places
Despite the increased (analytic) importance of urban agglomerations and multi-centred metropolitan regions, the central cities and especially old industrial areas close to historic cores are significant for the discussion on urban planning and innovation activity.
Almost any vibrant city has its own example of a wider re-valuation of city centres and an intensified culture and consumption-led gentrification of derelict industrial zones.
Zukin (1995), in the Cultures of Cities for example, points to “fashion, finance and food” as the drivers of Manhattan’s change.
Such environments do play a role in the inter-urban competition for business-locations, tourists and upper-middle class residents, attracting members of the so-called “creative class”.
Adaptive reuse, new social forms and new business models lead to real innovations in such circumstances.
This cultural / atmospheric / alternative interest is not new, but the growing European trend to manage very large redevelopments in a fresh, ‘cultural’ manner might represent urban innovation in Peter Hall’s sense.
Amsterdam, Barcelona, Hamburg are clear examples, but also Dublin, Oslo and Riga show signs of the new approach. Not accidentally, waterfront is an element in all these cases.
In these projects – from small and alternative to big and commercial – the meaning of place shifts from mere ‘pragmatic’ location, with focus on availability of material, labour and infrastructure, to a focus on the experience and appropriation of place.
According to Florida, cities striving for economic growth should invest in ’creative spaces’ and offer circumstances (in the form of challenging working and living environment, but also ’tolerance’ in atmosphere and nightlife) by means of which the so-called ‘creative class’ can commit to a city.
In recent years, we have seen cities deliberately ’constructing’ such circumstances, and developing techniques of branding as to attract creative groups.
The city is however not necessarily a correct institution to provide these places, but rather creative people in search of affordable workspace, inspiration or freedom, itself discovers and produces such ’creative spaces’.