Social Encounter by Experiment? Potentials and Pitfalls of Real-World Labs for Urban Planning
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Urban Planning (ISSN: 2183–7635)
2021, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 208–220
DOI: 10.17645/up.v6i1.3475
Article
Social Encounter by Experiment? Potentials and Pitfalls of Real-World
Labs for Urban Planning
Charlotte Räuchle
Institute of Geographical Science, Department of Earth Science, Free University Berlin, 12249 Berlin, Germany;
E-Mail: charlotte.raeuchle@fu-berlin.de
Submitted: 13 July 2020 | Accepted: 8 January 2021 | Published: 26 March 2021
Abstract
This article explores the potential of real-world labs (RWLs) and real-world experiments (RWEs) to be a fruitful addition to
established approaches in urban planning in Germany. While transdisciplinary and transformative RWLs rooted in socio-
ecological sustainability studies have become an important tool for experimenting with innovative solutions for environ-
mental challenges in cities, RWLs aimed at improving social cohesion in neighbourhoods and fostering a communal life
characterised by dialogue and solidarity are rare. To this latter aim, this article contributes with research experience
from a transdisciplinary RWL on cooperative urban open space development seeking to foster social cohesion in super-
diverse neighbourhoods in Germany. This article analyses the contradictory perceptions of the local stakeholders involved
as regards the potentials of RWEs to be a meaningful addition to established planning practices. This article makes it clear
that there is greater proximity between urban planning theory, practice, and RWEs than initially assumed. Nevertheless,
RWEs have considerable potential as a positive complement to established approaches to urban planning and as a means
of experimenting with open-ended encounter formats in neighbourhoods.
Keywords
encounter; neighbourhoods; real-world experiment; real-world lab; social cohesion; urban planning
Issue
This article is part of the issue “Urban Planning by Experiment” edited by Christian Scholl (Maastricht University,
The Netherlands) and Joop de Kraker (Maastricht University, The Netherlands).
© 2021 by the author; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu-
tion 4.0 International License (CC BY).
1. Introduction As this relation between experiments and the city—
as one aspect of the overarching ‘experimental turn’ in
Cities today face a multitude of ecological, social, and the social and economic sciences—has recently been
economic problems—both new and old—and, as a result, attracting increasing attention in scientific discourse,
urban practitioners and researchers are searching for opinions on how to assess this relationship and its effects
new, transformative strategies to understand and solve in urban planning have multiplied. On the one hand,
these problems. Urban labs and experiments in their research notes the “absence of experiments in planning”
different variations seem to hold great potential for (Honey-Rosés & Stevens, 2019, p. 267). According to this
informing and re-directing established urban planning line of thinking, it is largely unclear whether far-reaching
approaches. Derived from earlier experiences in socio- effects can be achieved at all through experimental
ecological sustainability studies, a new methodological approaches in urban development. On the other hand,
approach called the real-world laboratory (RWL), which “city labs are seen as vehicles for innovation in urban
provides the research infrastructure for real-world exper- planning processes” (Scholl & Kemp, 2016, p. 89) and
iments (RWEs), has also become established in urban experimental methods using participatory and activat-
planning and development in Germany (Bulkeley et al., ing elements are said to be commonplace in urban plan-
2019; Schäpke et al., 2017, pp. 28–45; Schneidewind, ning theory and practice (Kanning, 2018, pp. 7–8). Here,
2014; Scholl & Kemp, 2016, pp. 89–91). “the experiment with its co-creative dogmas seems to
Urban Planning, 2021, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 208–220 208be a perfect fit for current governance policies in urban urban labs cf. Schäpke et al., 2017). RWLs describe trans-
planning” (Jacobsen, 2018, p. 36; see Caprotti & Cowley, disciplinary research institutions that are established
2017; Evans, Karvonen, & Raven, 2016). Indeed, even if to conduct RWEs in a spatially delimited social con-
urban labs have become an established tool in urban text (Schneidewind, 2014). RWLs aim to initiate trans-
development, the relationship between RWLs/RWEs and formation processes and to establish scientific as well
urban development/urban planning still seems to be as social learning processes (Parodi et al., 2016). RWLs
under-researched in both the conceptual and empiri- are essentially normative because they explicitly pursue
cal perspective. social goals (Defila & Di Giulio, 2018). Determining—in a
This knowledge gap concerning the potentials and first step—the theoretical-conceptual relation between
pitfalls of transdisciplinary and transformative RWLs in RWLs, RWEs, and urban planning, and thereby develop-
urban planning becomes even more apparent when the ing a clear definition of RWEs, can help shed light on the
various RWL topics are considered: While a broad array potentials and pitfalls of RWLs in urban planning more
of urban labs has been experimenting with innovative systematically. In the following section, I examine current
solutions for environmental challenges in cities, so far literature on these aspects.
little attention has been paid to ‘social’ RWLs aiming,
e.g., at improving the social cohesion in neighbourhoods 2.1. Approaching RWEs
(Räuchle & Schmiz, 2020). This is surprising insofar as the
management of ethnic or social diversity has become a RWEs’ characteristics become more apparent in compar-
central topic of urban policy-making not only in Germany ison with traditional lab experiments (Beecroft, Trenks,
but also across Europe within the last decade, leading to Rhodius, Benighaus, & Parodi, 2018; Parodi et al., 2016,
a broad variety of ‘mixing’ and ‘social cohesion’ policies pp. 15-16; Puttrowait, Dietz, Gantert, & Heynold, 2018).
and interventions in urban planning and development Taking the latter as a reference point, an RWE is defined
(Lapina, 2016; Phillips, 2015). as follows: (1) It is embedded in a specific spatial, phys-
The article at hand critically questions the potentials ical, social, economic, political, and, in the end, societal
and pitfalls of RWLs on social cohesion in urban plan- ‘real-world’ context. Thus, it is more exposed to ‘exter-
ning. The specific aim of this study is to analyse to what nal’ factors that are, in turn, more difficult to control than
extent urban local stakeholders perceive RWLs and RWEs in lab experiments; (2) Although RWEs can be repeated,
as a potential for urban planning, using an RWL project like a lab experiment can, these permanently changing
focused on cooperative urban open space development contexts make it more difficult or even impossible to
as a tool to foster social cohesion in super-diverse neigh- observe cause-and-effect relationships between depen-
bourhoods in Germany as a case study. dent and independent variables; (3) As a result, the pos-
The article proceeds as follows: The following sec- sibility to generalise the results is much more limited
tions outline the theoretical and conceptual relationship than in lab experiments; (4) Furthermore, the RWE’s
between urban planning, RWLs, and RWEs (Section 2) transdisciplinary methodology requires its co-design and
before the case study and methods of this article are co-production with actors from civil society, local govern-
set out (Section 3). Then, this article discusses the urban ment/administration, business, etc. (Renn, 2018). This
stakeholders’ perception of RWLs/RWEs as an additional calls for a continuous methodological reflection of the
tool for urban planning along three aspects: firstly, it asks research process with all participants; (5) Moreover, the
if an RWL is interesting for urban planning content-wise RWE as the RWL’s key instrument, which per se pur-
(Section 4), or secondly, in terms of the methodologi- sues transformative goals, consciously aims at initiating
cal design (Section 5), and thirdly, it explores how RWLs social change. Within the framework of RWLs, RWEs are
can enrich governance arrangements in urban planning intended to generate knowledge that guides action to
(Section 6). Finally, the practical value of RWLs/RWEs achieve normative goals.
as a tool for urban planning is critically questioned This is, however, an ideal-typical definition of RWEs.
(Section 7). It is still unclear whether the term ‘experiment’ is at
all appropriate given the strong deviations from lab
2. Theorising the Relationship between RWLs, RWEs, experiments and its inflationary, often unreflective use
and Urban Planning in social sciences (Karvonen & van Heur, 2014; May &
Perry, 2016). At best, a RWE represents a hybrid form
The conceptual and empirical relationship between of experiment, as it moves between knowledge pro-
urban labs and urban development/planning has not duction (describe/explain) and knowledge application
yet been definitively elucidated and depends on very (change/transform) as well as controlled and situation-
different dimensions, e.g., on the planning object, but specific framework conditions (Beecroft et al., 2018;
also on the lab definition itself (e.g., Scholl & Kemp, Schneidewind, 2014, p. 2). With this ideal-type of RWE
2016). For the case of this article, urban labs are pri- in mind, the question arises, whether and how RWLs
marily defined as RWLs, a specific conceptual-empirical and their experiments can be integrated into urban plan-
phenomenon in Germany and one form of an urban ning theory.
lab (for the relation between RWLs and other forms of
Urban Planning, 2021, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 208–220 2092.2. The Relation between RWLs and Urban Planning in into account than technocratic-hierarchical planning
General Perspective approaches (Othengrafen & Reimer, 2018). However,
there is one main difference: Urban planning aims to
Very simplified, urban planning constitutes the opposite intervene in urban spaces and change them, whereas
of an experimental approach to urban issues: Planning RWEs, in a first step, aim at revealing and explaining
means to make final, risk-averse decisions for future (causal) relationships between different dimensions in
action in the sense of a master plan, based on reliable urban spaces. Only in a second step shall RWEs have a
knowledge about the actual state, the set goals, and the transformative effect in urban spaces.
effects of the used instruments (e.g., Müller-Ibold, 1996,
p. 32). Once a plan has been approved and its implemen- 2.3. The Relation between RWLs and Urban Planning
tation has begun, the planning process ends. This, too, along Different Dimensions
is an ideal-typical definition which does not necessar-
ily correspond to ‘real-world’ urban planning. The rela- Taking a deeper look at the German conceptual debate
tion between RWLs, their experiments, and urban plan- on RWLs, the main points of discussion revolve around
ning processes depends to a large extent on the con- the goals of RWLs, the types of knowledge needed and
ceptual approach to urban planning (cf. Albrechts, 1991; produced in RWLs, as well as the instruments that are
Yiftachel, 1989). used to generate this knowledge. Elucidating the rela-
Applying a rational, technocratic-hierarchical under- tionship between RWLs and urban planning along these
standing of planning, a transdisciplinary and reflective dimensions, similarities and differences are revealed.
dimension in urban planning is likely to be ‘underdevel-
oped’ and, in conceptual terms, RWEs can hardly be inte- 2.3.1. Objectives
grated into this type of planning (Banovetz, 1971; Healey,
1983). However, considering rather recent planning the- Urban RWLs and urban planning share common objec-
ory, linear-hierarchical stringent approaches to planning tives when it comes to changing urban spaces. Both
no longer seem to exist, having instead been replaced charge urban space with meaning in accordance with nor-
by a modern, communicative-performative ideal of plan- mative goals that are—in the case of urban planning—
ning (Danielzyk & Sondermann, 2018; Healey, 1996, laid down in German planning law. These normative-legal
1997; Mackrodt & Helbrecht, 2013). Here, planning goals correspond to those of the political support pro-
seems to consist only of open, incremental, communica- grammes with which most RWLs in Germany are financed
tive negotiations and collaborations of different actors and, with that, express specific paradigms of societal
in networks (Danielzyk & Sondermann, 2018, p. 964; change: sustainability, ecological urban redevelopment,
Karow-Kluge, 2008; Knieling, 2018). The planner itself social cohesion, integration, etc. (Räuchle & Schmiz, 2020).
becomes a moderator between different interest groups Ultimately, it depends on the different RWLs and urban
(Olesen, 2018). In any case, in its modern understand- planning projects in which concrete values, i.e., objectives
ing, planning is highly flexible as it, in the face of are to be realised. This observation leads to the question
context-specific challenges, adapts its procedures and of knowledge: What do urban RWLs and urban planning
instruments correspondingly (Dorstewitz, 2014, p. 433). need to know to pursue these goals successfully?
Some theorists, but also practitioners, even model urban
planning—according to the critical-rationalist falsifica- 2.3.2. Types of Knowledge
tion criterion—as a trial-and-error process in which the
plan as a hypothesis and its implementation as an exper- In addition to knowledge about the urban context (sys-
iment are in a continuous feedback loop (Deutscher tem knowledge) and their own normative goals (target
Städtetag, 2013; Dorstewitz, 2014, p. 433). Lastly, con- knowledge), RWLs need and produce, with RWEs, knowl-
ceptually and terminologically, RWEs and urban planning edge about how to achieve the set goals (transformation
merge in the notion of ‘performative planning,’ particu- knowledge; Beecroft et al., 2018, p. 79; CASS & ProClim,
larly when ‘performative’ and ‘experimental’ are used as 1997, p. 15). RWEs, however, never create ‘secure’
synonyms (cf. Altrock, 2014). This, of course, does not knowledge, but only ‘safe’ ignorance/not-knowing: From
mean that urban planning is only limited to moderating a critical-rationalist point of view, RWEs’ hypotheses
processes. Urban planning is definitely based on plan- cannot be proven (verified), but only refuted (falsi-
ning guidelines, both in terms of strategy and content. fied). These experiments are therefore described as
Comparing RWEs and urban planning, experiments “metaphors for consciously dealing with ignorance”
are reversible and not designed for the long term; they (Groß, 2017, p. 21). They must be ‘open’ regarding
use urban spaces only temporarily. Furthermore, they do their results and contain a high degree of uncertainty.
not anticipate urban futures through the rational use of ‘Success’—however it may be defined—is not guaran-
available knowledge that, in turn, melts into an urban teed in these experiments. Yet, ‘learning by failing’ may
development plan (Schäfers, 1992, p. 232). In principle, also produce useful knowledge.
RWEs are in line with a planning approach that takes This, ultimately, also applies to urban planning.
subjective values and local traditions to a greater extent Planning almost always takes place under uncertainty as
Urban Planning, 2021, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 208–220 210soon as, in addition to the built environment, immate- Using these three categories, I analysed my empiri-
rial facts become, as system knowledge, part of urban cal case study along with my research question on
planning projects (Abbott, 2005). By forecasting future urban planning stakeholders’ perceptions of experimen-
developments, an urban development plan simplifies tal approaches. For this, this article refers to the notion
this knowledge so that in face of future imponderables, of ‘local planning culture’ thereby emphasising the
target knowledge is also uncertain. Finally, urban plan- constructivist nature of urban planning itself. By ‘local
ning also works with uncertain transformation knowl- planning culture’ I mean contextually embedded forms
edge because the effects of the used instruments on of urban planning that are shaped by overarching ways of
urban spaces cannot be estimated precisely. thinking and acting of urban planning actors themselves.
Local planning cultures manifest themselves in the social
2.3.3. Instruments production of urban spaces (Sondermann, 2017, p. 47).
One important dimension of planning on the ground is
In principle, urban development takes place, firstly, the specific local patterns of interpretation of different
through legal instruments (binding legal provisions), sec- planning actors. In this understanding, urban planning
ondly, through economic, exchange-based instruments objects do not exist as ‘objective’ problems, nor does
(legally binding but terminable contracts) and thirdly, the planning process. Rather, they are open to interpre-
through communicative-informative, persuasive instru- tation. In the following section, I present my case study
ments (convincing arguments). Mainly between this last and the applied methods before describing my empiri-
group of ‘informal’ urban planning instruments, e.g., cal findings.
neighbourhood development concepts, and RWLs, there
is clear proximity. RWLs then can be easily integrated 3. Setting the Stage: Case Study and Methodology
into planning projects in cities. Here, RWEs can be
used as instruments that produce not only participatory, This article draws on empirical research conducted
‘theoretical’ transformation knowledge, but also practi- between 2018 and 2020 in the context of the RWL
cal, tested knowledge, opening urban planning to the project “KoopLab: Participation through Cooperative
“unplanned” (Drobek & Tran, 2017, p. 103). In sum, it Open Space Development” (https://www.kooplab.de/
seems that communicative instruments and methods in project). This RWL project is one example of sim-
urban planning can be largely transferred to or adapted ilar research-practice-projects that address issues of
to RWLs—and vice versa (Eckart, Ley, Häußler, & Erl, social cohesion at the neighbourhood scale across
2018, pp. 131–145). European cities.
2.4. Analysing the Relation between RWEs and Urban 3.1. Urban Planning on Social Cohesion and Encounter
Planning from the Perspective of Local Planning Cultures
The steadily increasing diversity within cities has led to
Even if, from a theoretical-conceptual perspective, the the insight that political steering is needed to strengthen
relation between RWEs and urban planning is charac- local social cohesion and promote the acceptance of
terised by certain proximity, it remains unclear if this diversity, particularly in super-diverse urban neighbour-
also applies to the reality of urban planning and the use hoods. This request is rooted in the observation that,
of experimental approaches in different urban settings. despite a fundamental appreciation of diversity in soci-
Thus, although the paragraphs above describe the con- ety, not every form of diversity meets with unqualified
ceptual relation, they do not elaborate on this mutual acceptance (Wiesemann, 2019; Wilson, 2017); intoler-
relation in greater empirical detail. I, therefore, propose ance and rejection are certainly realities of everyday life
the following categories to aid in understanding the in cities. In this respect, it is not only within the sci-
value of RWEs for urban planning from a practical point entific community that the potential of group-spanning
of view. The relationship between RWEs and urban plan- contacts and encounter for social cohesion is empha-
ning depends on the three dimensions of target, system, sised but also within urban development and planning
and transformation knowledge, which in turn provide practice (vhw, 2019). Accordingly, many social neigh-
the following analytical categories: bourhood development measures in European cities are
geared towards creating group-spanning contacts, often
• Target knowledge relates to an RWL’s content, in combination with the idea of a ‘social mix’ (Phillips,
which may or may not be of interest for urban 2015). At the same time, such measures frequently
planning. explain the kind and quality of encounters which are
• System knowledge describes how an RWL is inte- expected to reduce prejudices.
grated into local governance arrangements and Here, the idea of ‘spontaneous encounter’ in pub-
how urban planning relates to it. lic spaces is contrasted with that of ‘organised encoun-
• How the RWL collects transformation knowledge ters.’ Regarding the former, many authors in urban and
determines whether the RWL/RWE can be used as planning theory are convinced that, as shared every-
an additional instrument for urban planning. day places, public spaces promote contact between
Urban Planning, 2021, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 208–220 211members of different social groups and, thus, lead encounter and exchange for listeners from the direct
to higher acceptability of social diversity (Dangschat, neighbourhood and more distant residential areas; and
2011; Sennett, 1991; Shaftoe, 2008), while sceptical (3) according to the motto “Sahlkamp dines,” a long table
voices regard everyday interaction being characterised that was set with white tablecloths and porcelain in the
by mutual distancing and indifference (Amin, 2002; middle of the district park that invited local people to eat
Valentine, 2008; Wiesemann, 2015). In contrast, ‘organ- and drink together.
ised encounters’ describe the creation of places of With a population of over 5,600 inhabitants and
encounter and the provision of opportunities for encoun- almost 2,500 households, Sahlkamp is located on the
ters like communal gardens, concerts, etc. as part of north-eastern edge of Hanover. In socio-demographic
urban development programmes to help reduce preju- terms, it deviates in some key ways from the city-
dices and create social cohesion (Wiesemann, 2019, p. 7). wide averages. For example, it is characterised by an
Nevertheless, research warns against excessive opti- above-average proportion of households with many
mism, as the course of encounters—especially organised children, higher rates of transfer benefit receipt, and
ones—is never predictable. It is not clear how relation- a relatively large share of Germans with a ‘migra-
ships will develop in concrete situations (Wilson, 2017). tion background’ (i.e., international immigrants and
Against this backdrop, it is worth discussing the their children). The neighbourhood has been devel-
usefulness of combining established methods of urban oped since the 1960s under the leadership of the pub-
development or planning with approaches that make lic authorities to build affordable social housing. Since
greater use of spontaneous, experimental forms of 2009, the neighbourhood has been part of the fed-
encounter to improve social cohesion in urban neigh- eral and state programme “Soziale Stadt” (“Social City”)
bourhoods. In Germany, RWLs/RWEs are being tested as as an “urban district with special development needs”
a new approach within urban planning to boost social (Landeshauptstadt Hannover, 2015, p. 5). In addition to
cohesion in super-diverse neighbourhoods. Also, this arti- ‘investive’ measures, the local social infrastructure was
cle draws on experience from a RWL in a super-diverse also increasingly developed with the aim of not only
neighbourhood. strengthening social networks and neighbourhoods but
also of promoting a “neighbourhood identity” and a
3.2. KoopLab and Case Study in Hanover-Sahlkamp “culture of participation” (Landeshauptstadt Hannover,
2019). Thus, the KoopLab RWL was established in a neigh-
At its three locations in Leipzig, Dortmund, and Hanover, bourhood where the management of social cohesion
the project KoopLab aims to test innovative methods through urban planning initiatives has a long tradition.
of cooperative open space development that will bring While in the citywide discourse the district is discussed as
residents together to design and develop green and a ‘problem area’ and a stigmatised neighbourhood, the
open spaces close to their homes. The spatial focus perceptions of the residents themselves are quite varied
is on so-called ‘arrival neighbourhoods,’ characterised here, as our empirical analyses have shown.
by social disadvantage, migration, and high residen-
tial density (Saunders, 2010). For this article, particu- 3.3. Empirical Methods
lar focus is placed on the experiences of the RWL in
Hanover, more specifically in the super-diverse neigh- First, to gain an overview of the Hanoverian neighbour-
bourhood Sahlkamp. The RWL Hanover-Sahlkamp is run hood Sahlkamp, existing urban planning initiatives and
by a university-based scientific team, an urban planning the handling of social cohesion at the neighbourhood
office experienced in participation procedures, and a level, the project team employed a secondary analysis
civil society organisation, active in the neighbourhood of existing data, including data on demographics pro-
for years. KoopLab is integrated into local governance vided by the municipal statistical offices. Also, we evalu-
arrangement in Hanover-Sahlkamp in different ways: ated newspaper articles, documents, and web pages pub-
There is not only a working relationship between the lished by local authorities and semi-public actors such as
lab and the city’s urban planning section within the local civil society organisations to identify policy goals, stake-
administration but also various residents and profes- holders, institutional arrangements, and temporary pro-
sional actors from the neighbourhood, e.g., social work- grammes relevant to urban planning and the manage-
ers, have contributed to the RWL. Since 2018, KoopLab ment of ‘social cohesion,’ ‘mixing,’ and ‘encounters.’
has been conducting a series of interventions, i.e., RWEs, However, given the scarcity of knowledge concerning
all of which are geared towards developing alternative the handling of experimental approaches in local urban
uses of open spaces and opportunities for encounters planning and the perception of involved stakeholders of
and strengthening social cohesion. These interventions the RWL, the main focus of the empirical work for this
include, for example: (1) A construction trailer that article lay on qualitative methods that would allow for
served as a mobile on-site café in seldom-used open an interpretative approach to local planning cultures, i.e.,
spaces in the neighbourhood; (2) a balcony concert in we conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with three
a communal plot garden, surrounded by multi-storey groups of stakeholders:
residential buildings, which created an occasion for
Urban Planning, 2021, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 208–220 212• First, a total of four interviews were conducted ports a strong collaboration with civil society initiatives
with people associated with neighbourhood devel- (Sondermann, 2015). This is also confirmed by the per-
opment and social services in Hanover-Sahlkamp. ception of the interviewed stakeholders, as will be shown
Many of these interviewees were closely related in the following.
to the KoopLab RWL, e.g., through participation in
different lab interventions. 4. The Content Dimension: Neighbourhood-Related
• Second, four interviews were carried out with rep- Planning and Transformative RWLs (Target Knowledge)
resentatives from municipal politics and adminis-
tration, i.e., with experts affiliated to Hanover’s Due to the city’s generally open planning culture, it is
urban planning and neighbourhood develop- not surprising that the interviewed urban planning and
ment section. community development stakeholders in Hanover have
• Third, four interviews were conducted with mem- a rather positive attitude towards the RWL KoopLab.
bers of the KoopLab core team at different stages This applies first and foremost to the lab’s overarch-
in the lab processes. ing objectives.
The interviews focused, on the one hand, on the 4.1. Compatibility of Values and Norms
Sahlkamp neighbourhood and its communal life, (the
history of) local planning initiatives in Hanover in gen- A RWL that aims at strengthening social cohesion in a
eral and in Sahlkamp in particular, on corresponding super-diverse neighbourhood is in line with overarch-
governance arrangements, and the role of performative- ing (normative) political programmes that define how to
experimental approaches in this context. On the other politically handle these neighbourhoods, as in the case
hand, the interviews aimed at capturing the perceptions of the national urban development programme “Social
of the KoopLab RWL, the sense and senselessness of the City” (see above). This closeness in terms of contents
conducted experiments/interventions and their effects is reflected in the interviewees’ statements: A majority
in the neighbourhood. of them perceives the communal social life in the neigh-
The interview partners were selected according to bourhood as being by no means conflict-free, especially
the ‘sampling along predefined criteria’ as well as the because of its super-diversity. However, an appreciative
‘snowball sampling’ (Przyborski & Wohlrab-Sahr, 2014, perspective is the decisive aspect for the basically posi-
pp. 182–185). The interviews were transcribed and analy- tive attitude towards the neighbourhood, as an involved
sed with the assistance of the text analysis programme urban planner emphasises: “What is really at stake is
MAXQDA. Empirical data was then subject to a qualita- the positive recognition of a diversified urban society,
tive content analysis based on multistage, thematic cod- be it multi-ethnic, multicultural, multinational, multiso-
ing (Mayring, 2010). cial, or whatever, and Sahlkamp reflects this in a cer-
However, in the context of the RWL and conducted tain way” (personal communication). Against this back-
RWEs, participant observations in Sahlkamp also helped ground, local stakeholders promote the “strengthening
to capture the perceptions of different groups of resi- of the neighbourhood,” the enabling of “peaceful coex-
dents. In addition to these rather ‘classical’ methods of istence” and “pacification” in the neighbourhood, and
qualitative social research, the members of the RWL’s ultimately its strong social cohesion, as fundamental val-
core team—including myself—met every 2–3 weeks to ues for the neighbourhood. Encouraging people to par-
exchange information and coordinate the lab process. ticipate in urban development processes becomes, in
Apart, they took part in various discussion groups and their opinion, a means to the end of achieving social
events in the neighbourhood and (informally) talked to participation, conveying local democratic values, and
residents and planners about their experiences in the informing people about their rights as residents in the
neighbourhood. All these observations and conversa- neighbourhood. These ideas are not only compatible
tions were recorded in a digital ‘RWL diary.’ These empir- with already existing neighbourhood development pro-
ical data only play a ‘flanking role’ in the context of this grammes in Hanover-Sahlkamp; they also do justice to
article and are not systematically analysed. the conceptual demand that RWLs, with their transfor-
As described above, from a conceptual perspective, mative approach, should pursue a socially legitimate goal
whether proximity between RWEs and urban planning that is ethically well-founded and oriented towards the
can be deduced depends on very different dimensions, common good (Defila & Di Giulio, 2018, p. 12).
e.g., the understanding of urban planning itself. How
this plays out in ‘real-world’ planning practice, however, 4.2. Normative Dilemma
is also an ambiguous question. This relation depends
very much, as I assume, on the local urban planning While in terms of content, the proximity between
culture (see above). Here, Hanover seems to provide a urban planning initiatives in Hanover-Sahlkamp and the
rather favourable context for experimental approaches: KoopLab RWL can easily be deduced, it becomes more
As previous studies have shown, Hanover has a tradition difficult in terms of the (democratic) justification. In the
of an open, communicative planning culture that sup- case of the lab, on the one hand, its overriding values
Urban Planning, 2021, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 208–220 213and norms are set top-down. On the other hand, the RWL 5.1. Questioning the Very Potential of RWEs in
concept is based on the understanding that the norma- Urban Planning
tive goals are to be determined with the participation
of all stakeholders (co-creation and co-design). Although Stakeholders from all different groups see several
the interviewed stakeholders in Sahlkamp identify with strengths and great potential in RWEs for testing possi-
the overarching value of the RWL (“social cohesion”), bilities for encounter in neighbourhoods. However, the
secondary project objectives are simultaneously called interviewees make a very precise distinction between
into question. For example, an involved social worker social neighbourhood development initiatives (like in the
voices criticism of the top-down set goals: “I find other context of “Social City”) on the one hand and ‘classi-
topics much more important than open space develop- cal’ planning and participation processes subject to var-
ment. Namely simply housing” (personal communica- ious (in)formal regulations on the other. While, in the
tion). Thus, while some stakeholders stress the impor- former case, experimental formats are quite common
tance of green spaces for life in the neighbourhood, and the proximity to performative approaches in urban
others question the relevance of social encounters in planning is evident, in the latter case, RWEs represent
public spaces to the residents’ often highly problematic a special opportunity. With RWEs, as an interviewed
daily life: “Green and open spaces in the city are cer- planner stresses, one moves “in a field that does not
tainly not the first thing that comes to people’s minds belong to the mainstream of urban planning, because
when they think about their problems” (personal com- there, the processes are usually so narrowly defined”
munication). An interviewed urban planner reflects that (personal communication). Thus, RWEs offer special free-
KoopLab only receives its legitimation from the “seal of dom to experiment. The interviewed members of the
a research project,” especially vis-à-vis the city admin- RWL core team particularly emphasise that, compared
istration: “We are using this to introduce experimen- to other urban planning interventions that aim to create
tal formats of neighbourhood participation…they have social cohesion, RWEs also gain a special character due
gained respectability in the eyes of the planners because to their being embedded in the research infrastructure of
they are not just any kind of student artist actions” (per- an RWL: “It is very important that one is not ‘only’ prac-
sonal communication). tically engaged in urban space…but that you reflect on it
The difference to urban planning is obvious: It is with each other” (personal communication).
also subject to the ‘normative dilemma’ but to a much In terms of knowledge production, there is a dif-
lesser extent, given the more precise political guidelines ference between experimental and traditional planning
in urban planning and the lower level of participation. approaches. The open RWE, with its possibility of ‘failure,’
This also applies to the problem of the translation of differs from the instruments of conventional planning
overriding values or their operationalisation into stan- procedures such as public discussions, round tables, or
dards that guide action. However, particularly in a super- workshops. Experiments do not create ‘safe’ knowledge,
diverse neighbourhood like Hanover-Sahlkamp, it is not they do not primarily serve to resolve conflicts, and cre-
possible to define social cohesion, participation, and a ate acceptance. Nevertheless, urban planners involved
‘good’ neighbourhood by consensus bottom-up, given in KoopLab estimate the potential of experiments to be
the fact the local population is so diverse (Räuchle & so high that they argue that they should no longer take
Schmiz, 2020). Here, the RWL offers a specific potential, place only in the ‘niche,’ but be integrated into official
as it is precisely its task to concretise such overriding val- planning processes or precede them before the “actual
ues in constant dialogue and on-going communication planning machinery is set in motion” (personal commu-
with the local residents. This is, at least, confirmed by nication). In the interviewed stakeholders’ opinion, the
urban planning actors in Hanover, who stress that urban potential of experiments lies in mobilising and activating
planning might be overburdened with this task due to a local citizens and testing, e.g., options regarding how to
lack of personnel and financial resources. use public spaces (cf. also Altrock, 2014, p. 24).
However, on the other side of the coin, the analy-
5. The Instrumental Dimension: Knowledge Production sis reveals that some local stakeholders stress the lim-
and RWEs (Transformation Knowledge) itations or challenges of this approach rather than its
strengths. First, when specifically asked about the inno-
Although the RWE as the RWL’s key instrument might vative potential of RWEs for social cohesion, interview
differ from the instruments of conventional urban plan- partners from the social neighbourhood development
ning in conceptual respect, it is controversial whether department emphasised that they had “always” experi-
this applies to urban planning practice. What do mented with opportunities for encounters. As such, they
local stakeholders in KoopLab think about experimen- indicate that these experimental approaches are actu-
tal approaches in urban planning for strengthening ally nothing new. Furthermore, some stakeholders point
social cohesion in general and in Hanover-Sahlkamp to the ambiguity of the RWE format: It is possible, on
in particular? an abstract level, to precisely define this type of exper-
iment; however, the real challenge lies in its empirical
implementation/operationalisation in urban planning in
Urban Planning, 2021, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 208–220 214line with the superordinate RWL’s topic. For example, 6. The Actor Dimension: Governance Arrangements
it is relatively easy to conduct experiments on techni- and Networks of Relationships (System Knowledge)
cal issues of sustainability because their structure is usu-
ally clear, and the results can be recorded quantitatively. Governance as a conceptual-heuristic framework
In contrast, this is considerably more difficult for RWEs describes urban actors and their relationships (hierar-
on social cohesion, because the results or effects cannot chical, competitive, cooperative), which are shaped by
be measured. superimposed values and norms (Benz & Dose, 2010).
Concerning RWL’s embeddedness in local governance
5.2. Questioning the Very Impact of KoopLab’s RWEs arrangements, the city administration may be closely
associated with the lab, as either its “initiator or an
Against this background, the usefulness of the KoopLab important party to it,” as in the case of ‘city labs’ (Scholl
RWEs is assessed ambiguously. Different interviewees & Kemp, 2016, p. 89). This article is, however, based on
say that they see their potential for the Hanover- an understanding of labs as RWLs whose relationship
Sahlkamp neighbourhood in two aspects: On the one to the municipal administration and city politics can be
hand, they expect that the RWEs demonstrate to actors much looser. This general approach to RWL governance
at various levels of urban governance (district and city) arrangements corresponds to an open local planning cul-
which creative urban planning instruments can be used ture (Sondermann, 2017, p. 47). From the governance
to boost social cohesion. On the other hand, project par- perspective, different paradigms of spatial planning can
ticipants hope that the RWEs will open up possibilities for then be determined, ranging from the ‘synoptic’ plan-
residents: Some interview partners stress that they are ning ideal (rational planning approach, intervening, hier-
not only interested in getting residents more engaged archical governance) to a ‘discursive’ planning culture
in the development of ‘their’ neighbourhood in general, (planning approach open to communication and results,
but that empowering socially disadvantaged people is negotiating-cooperative governance; Nuissl & Heinrichs,
particularly important. Another positive aspect is that 2006). The latter will be discussed here and the question
KoopLab offers a chance for longer-term engagement is whether interviewees perceive a specific potential of
in the neighbourhood. Although the different RWEs are how the KoopLab RWL is embedded in Hanover’s urban
always of short duration, an RWL is usually established governance arrangements.
for several years. As one of the city planners involved
put it, “Urban planning is all too often like that, that 6.1. Competitive, Hierarchical, and Cooperative
you get an impression on the spot, but you are never Relations
on-site as long and in as much detail as we are now in
Sahlkamp. For me, it means that much more comes to As introduced above, KoopLab represents an additional
light” (personal communication). In the case of KoopLab, governance actor in Hanover-Sahlkamp, which acts rela-
the involved stakeholders stress that the project’s exper- tively autonomously compared to other actors and also
imental approach definitely improves the neighbour- to the city’s official urban planning politics. However,
hood’s conditions for social encounter and appeals to res- the RWL tries to establish cooperative relationships with
idents who are difficult to reach even within an open, other stakeholders in the neighbourhood and to dock
communicative approach in urban planning procedures. into existing networks, e.g., by participating once a
However, KoopLab’s potential for the neighbourhood month in a working group responsible for organising
should not be overestimated. In this vein, one represen- neighbourhood events and consisting of the neighbour-
tative of the local community development department hood management, social workers, the biggest housing
argued that “KoopLab is not really a concern for local res- company on-site, and civil society organisations. In this
idents, and the project is relatively invisible overall” (per- respect, KoopLab serves as an intermediary interface
sonal communication). between different groups of actors. The advantages of
In general, it seems that the consideration of experi- this rather independent position of the RWL are also
mentally produced knowledge by official urban planning recognised by various interviewed stakeholders, e.g.,
apparently depends on the inner ‘attitude’ of planners one representative of a local neighbourhood initiative
themselves. An open planning culture such as that in stresses: “If we were more involved in official urban plan-
Hanover or an open attitude such as that of the local ning procedures, competition would be much stronger
stakeholders certainly regards such knowledge produc- and some interventions would have met with more resis-
tion as an opportunity to make urban planning projects tance from residents” (personal communication).
more citizen-centred. Here, KoopLab reveals that RWLs However, in the case of public spaces, the duration of
might be “a way of getting around the formal bureau- the KoopLab interventions, i.e., RWEs, is decisive. As long
cratic system in a quasi-formal way, by allowing certain as KoopLab only conducted temporary interventions in
deviations” (Scholl & Kemp, 2016, p. 93). As such, exper- public space, no conflicts arose, e.g., with community
imental approaches seem to hold potential for urban workers or the urban planning section within the local
planning instrument-wise, but does that also apply to administration. But, as soon as the core team tried to inter-
governance arrangements? vene with a long-term perspective, permission was not
Urban Planning, 2021, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 208–220 215granted from the city. Here, one member of the lab’s core of RWEs to be a fruitful addition to established urban
team emphasises: “This is very annoying because we can’t planning practices. Based on an interpretative approach
implement ideas that really make sense for the neighbour- to planning and the notion of local planning culture, this
hood” (personal communication). Hierarchical relation- study has focused on the content, instrumental, and gov-
ships are also evident in the case of interventions on pri- ernance dimension of urban planning. The findings pre-
vately owned land as permissions are not readily granted. sented are case study-based and, therefore, their gen-
eralisability must be critically questioned. Furthermore,
6.2. RWL as a New Actor the RWL’s way of producing experimental knowledge is
nothing entirely new for urban planning science and prac-
Against the background of the cooperative, communica- tice. In some respects, the RWL concept takes up the
tive planning culture in Hanover (Sondermann, 2015, approaches that have already emerged in urban planning
2017), the urban planning staff with whom KoopLab in recent past, for example within the framework of the
works accepts the RWL as a new player and initially wel- communicative planning paradigm. Nevertheless, urban
comes its interventions for experimental space use with planning actors (in Hanover) see RWLs/RWEs as a poten-
interest and goodwill, as different interviewees confirm. tial for urban planning (in the case of social cohesion
They also accept that KoopLab acts relatively indepen- through cooperative open space development) particu-
dently within the framework of the neighbourhood- larly in the following aspects:
related governance arrangement. The urban planning
staff also see themselves, at least partially, involved in for- • Negotiation of values and norms: A RWL with
malised planning procedures which do not ensure suffi- its experimental, transdisciplinary and ‘low-
cient flexibility, as one urban planner confirms: “As part threshold’ interventions, i.e., RWEs, enables the
of the local administration, we cannot take such an inde- negotiation of overarching values and norms as
pendent position. This is particularly unfortunate in the well as their operationalisation for practice in dif-
case of planning projects that require a high degree of ferent neighbourhoods. Here, the lab offers the
low-threshold participation” (personal communication). specific chance to take into account local inhabi-
This is also true when the city awards a project to tants’ opinions, perceptions, and proposals that
a private planning office. An interviewed planner also receive only limited attention in official planning
remarks that the flexibility for participating inhabitants processes. In this respect, RWLs may provide
is limited in official planning projects, given the more a more differentiated picture of what different
or less differentiated catalogue of services that must be groups of local stakeholders actually expect from
worked through. Incidentally, most neighbourhoods—like different planning projects.
Sahlkamp—have multi-layered constellations of actors • Extending opportunities for participation: RWLs can
and a complex range of interests that can only be covered expand opportunities for local residents’ participa-
by formal planning procedures to a limited extent. This tion in neighbourhood planning. The lab’s trans-
opens up far-reaching possibilities for a RWL like KoopLab. disciplinary approach—possibly combined with a
There can be no clear answer to the question of how targeted strategy of empowerment—its long-term
a RWL must position itself in the governance arrange- engagement, and its various collaborative RWEs
ment of a city or neighbourhood to be able to work in a reach out to (marginalised) groups of residents with
goal-oriented manner. This also applies to RWLs such as whom urban planning may find difficulty getting in
KoopLab Hannover, which retain their autonomy by nei- touch with. Furthermore, a lab’s ‘neutrality’ in the
ther concluding formal declarations of intent or land use sense of a possible distance from other actors—
agreements with the city administration nor entering too especially from urban planning administration or
closely into cooperation with the official planning author- housing companies—can positively influence the
ities. After all, interviewees confirm that they are maybe relation with a local public. Especially for social-
more likely to involve marginalised groups of residents participatory projects, an extended involvement of
who have little confidence in local actors working closely residents brings advantages for the planning pro-
with the urban administration. Informal, loose relation- cess and the achievement of planning goals.
ships can be very promising for RWLs that aim at foster- • Permission to fail and reflect: Like urban planning,
ing social cohesion in the neighbourhood as an exper- RWLs pursue a transformative, normative goal.
imental niche in the existing governance arrangement. However, their RWEs do not aim at creating the
This is confirmed by the city’s urban planning representa- conditions for achieving this goal, but primarily
tives, who see the potential of the RWL precisely in this serve the purpose of open knowledge production.
independent position. They allow for ‘failure’ and are designed to reflect
the gained knowledge. For example, experiments
7. Lessons Learnt and Outlook can be conducted in different variations, which is
hardly possible in planning itself. Openness, reflec-
This article explored how local stakeholders from, e.g., tion, and an ‘empathic understanding’ of local
urban planning and social work perceive the potential issues are also often neglected in (conventional)
Urban Planning, 2021, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 208–220 216planning procedures. However, they can be helpful Conflict of Interests
at least for an open planning culture, possibly as a
preliminary stage to the actual planning process. The author declares no conflict of interests.
• RWLs as new actors: As a new ‘actor,’ the
RWL enters governance arrangements at the References
neighbourhood scale with its established actor
structures and relationships. For urban planning Abbott, J. (2005). Understanding and managing the
procedures, a RWL offers the opportunity not only unknown: The nature of uncertainty in planning.
to be a source of new ideas but also to break Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(3),
up ingrained, path-dependent patterns of rela- 237–251.
tionships and negotiation. At least a rather open Albrechts, L. (1991). Changing roles and positions of plan-
local planning culture can perceive the co-design ners. Urban Studies, 28(123), 123–137.
and co-production in RWEs as enrichment. In this Altrock, U. (2014). Das Ende der Angebotsplanung?
respect, RWLs can serve as intermediate interfaces Instrumente der Planung im Wandel [The end of
between different groups of actors. They can dock the offer planning? Planning instruments in change].
onto existing networks, bring together actors who In P. Küpper, M. Levin-Keitel, F. Maus, P. Müller, S.
have had little contact with each other in the past, Reimann, M. Sondermann, . . . T. Wiegand (Eds.), Rau-
or set up flexible formats of cooperation which mentwicklung 3.0: Gemeinsam die Zukunft der räum-
urban planning is not able to do in its formal plan- lichen Planung gestalten [Spatial development 3.0:
ning procedures—due to legally or bureaucrati- Shaping the future of spatial planning together] (pp.
cally defined forms of participation, lack of time, 15–32). Hanover: ARL.
or lack of human or financial resources. If partici- Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Liv-
patory, deliberative involvement is a goal of plan- ing with diversity. Environment and Planning A: Econ-
ning, it can be strengthened by RWLs. omy and Space, 34(6), 959–980.
Banovetz, J. M. (1971). The city and change: Program-
The recent crises that cities have been facing make ming for control. In J. M. Banovetz (Ed.), Manag-
new modes of transformative research necessary. In this ing the modern city (pp. 134–150). Washington, DC:
study, I have argued that RWEs at the intersection of International City Management Association.
urban planning and community development hold unex- Beecroft, R., Trenks, H., Rhodius, R., Benighaus, C., &
pected potential for testing different ‘opportunities for Parodi, O. (2018). Reallabore als Rahmen transfor-
encounters.’ In future research, however, comparative mativer und transdisziplinärer Forschung [Real-world
analyses of RWLs may help researchers gain a better labs as a framework for transformative and transdis-
understanding of constricting local conditions and the ciplinary research]. In R. Defila & A. Di Giulio (Eds.),
varied influence of different institutional environments Transdisziplinär und transformativ forschen: Eine
on the transformative potential of RWEs and the suc- Methodensammlung [Transdisciplinary and trans-
cessful creation of spaces of encounter. At the interna- formative research: A collection of methods] (pp.
tional level, comparative analyses of labs with different 75–100). Wiesbaden: Springer.
underlying theoretical concepts may identify specific lab Benz, A., & Dose, N. (2010). Governance: Modebegriff
settings that promote or inhibit social cohesion. Such oder nützliches sozialwissenschaftliches Konzept?
research would be especially helpful to scientists and pol- [Governance: A buzzword or a useful social sci-
icymakers who wish to realise the full potential RWEs ence concept?] In A. Benz & N. Dose (Eds.), Gover-
have to contribute at the interface of urban planning nance: Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Eine
and community development to the fair and sustainable Einführung [Governance: Governing in complex sys-
transformation of cities. tems of rules. An introduction] (pp. 13–36). Wies-
baden: Springer.
Acknowledgments Bulkeley, H., Marvin, S., Voytenko Palgan, Y., McCormick,
K., Breitfuss-Loidl, M., Mai, L., . . . Frantzeskaki, N.
This article is based on the article “Zum Verhältnis (2019). Urban living laboratories: Conducting the
von Reallabor, Realexperiment und Stadtplanung am experimental city? European Urban and Regional
Beispiel kooperativer Freiraumgestaltung“ published in Studies, 26(4), 317–335.
Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research Caprotti, F., & Cowley, R. (2017). Interrogating urban
and Planning, DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.41. The experiments. Urban Geography, 38(9), 1441–1450.
research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of CASS & ProClim. (1997). Forschung zu Nachhaltigkeit und
Education and Research (BMBF). I would like to thank the Globalem Wandel: Wissenschaftspolitische Visionen
whole transdisciplinary “KoopLab” team for long, intense, der Schweizer Forschenden [Research on sustain-
fruitful, and inspiring debates. Furthermore, I thank two ability and global change: Science policy visions of
anonymous reviewers for their constructive and most swiss researchers]. Bern: Schweizerische Akademie
helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. der Wissenschaften. Retrieved from https://
Urban Planning, 2021, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 208–220 217You can also read
