Neighbourhood resilience in mass housing: Co-production via research-by-design

Stollmann, J (2016) Neighbourhood resilience in mass housing: Co-production via research-by-design. Building Research & Information, 44(7), pp. 737-753. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

In the debate on neighbourhood resilience, there is a demand for co-production involving inhabitants in adaptation processes. Neighbourhood resilience is discussed in terms of economic, ecological and socio-political capacities, making place-people relations a key factor. Academia-led research-by-design projects are engaging in resilience-building, but professional roles are still unclear. Architects, planners and urban designers often have limited knowledge about the specific community and the socio-economic impacts of their projects. This especially occurs in modernist mass-housing settlements within current conditions of neo-liberalization. Here, inhabitants and designers have only limited access to decision-making power and resources. More significantly, the spatial improvements might endanger major resources: the social cohesion and affordability of the neighbourhood. Using the concepts of collaboration (versus cooperation) and resourcefulness (versus resilience), this paper discusses the advantages and limits of academic design projects using two cases from the Academy of a New Gropiusstadt (AnG) in Berlin, Germany. Based on a process of community-based research-by-design, these projects activate spatial facilities and employ full-scale interventions to improve local resilience. Resourceful collaboration at the neighbourhood level demands new intermediary actors and designers as advocates with multi-scalar and transdisciplinary knowledge and abilities to assess and engage with the impacts of their co-produced design work.;  In the debate on neighbourhood resilience, there is a demand for co-production involving inhabitants in adaptation processes. Neighbourhood resilience is discussed in terms of economic, ecological and socio-political capacities, making place-people relations a key factor. Academia-led research-by-design projects are engaging in resilience-building, but professional roles are still unclear. Architects, planners and urban designers often have limited knowledge about the specific community and the socio-economic impacts of their projects. This especially occurs in modernist mass-housing settlements within current conditions of neo-liberalization. Here, inhabitants and designers have only limited access to decision-making power and resources. More significantly, the spatial improvements might endanger major resources: the social cohesion and affordability of the neighbourhood. Using the concepts of collaboration (versus cooperation) and resourcefulness (versus resilience), this paper discusses the advantages and limits of academic design projects using two cases from the Academy of a New Gropiusstadt (AnG) in Berlin, Germany. Based on a process of community-based research-by-design, these projects activate spatial facilities and employ full-scale interventions to improve local resilience. Resourceful collaboration at the neighbourhood level demands new intermediary actors and designers as advocates with multi-scalar and transdisciplinary knowledge and abilities to assess and engage with the impacts of their co-produced design work.;In the debate on neighbourhood resilience, there is a demand for co-production involving inhabitants in adaptation processes. Neighbourhood resilience is discussed in terms of economic, ecological and socio-political capacities, making place-people relations a key factor. Academia-led research-by-design projects are engaging in resilience-building, but professional roles are still unclear. Architects, planners and urban designers often have limited knowledge about the specific community and the socio-economic impacts of their projects. This especially occurs in modernist mass-housing settlements within current conditions of neo-liberalization. Here, inhabitants and designers have only limited access to decision-making power and resources. More significantly, the spatial improvements might endanger major resources: the social cohesion and affordability of the neighbourhood. Using the concepts of collaboration (versus cooperation) and resourcefulness (versus resilien e), this paper discusses the advantages and limits of academic design projects using two cases from the Academy of a New Gropiusstadt (AnG) in Berlin, Germany. Based on a process of community-based research-by-design, these projects activate spatial facilities and employ full-scale interventions to improve local resilience. Resourceful collaboration at the neighbourhood level demands new intermediary actors and designers as advocates with multi-scalar and transdisciplinary knowledge and abilities to assess and engage with the impacts of their co-produced design work.;

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: participation; urban politics; built environment; agency; design education; housing; collaboration; co-production; neighbourhood design; resilience; resourcefulness; construction & building technology; designers; design
Index terms: designer, adaptation, socio-economic impact, resourcefulness, local resilience, building technology, urban designer, community-based, urban politic, Berlin, intermediary, affordability, housing, cooperation, agency, built environment, academia, Germany, architect, design education, planner, decision-making, neighbourhood design, liberalization, co-production, collaboration, social cohesion
Subjects: management, Geography, urban design, professional education, decision analysis, sociology, educational institutions, communities and social development, infrastructure and transport systems, construction type, profession, business, user focus, economic and policy analysis, engineering systems, innovation studies, psychology, urban planning, economic analysis
Topics: Urban Studies, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Education, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Governance, Construction Technology
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here