A matter of scales: Experiential evaluation as a scaling device to support a scaling platform in a case of urban design | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Artifact
  4. Volume 9, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 9, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN: 1749-3463
  • E-ISSN: 1749-3471
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Spatial densification is an ongoing process in most cities today, but has an uneasy relation with the liveability of our environments. In this article, we approach this uneasy relationship between densification and liveability as a ‘matter of scales’ and work consciously with the tensions which arise, such as a lack of communication and mistrust. We analyse a case of urban design and discuss how the participatory design approach of ‘experiential evaluation’ as a ‘scaling device’ was deployed to support the formation of a ‘scaling platform’ around this matter of scale. This scaling platform has the ambition to connect the multiple actors across multiple scales to make the tensions between scales constructive. In the discussion, we present the learnings of the design process and the challenges that we encountered.

© 2022 The Author(s) Published by Intellect Ltd.
This article is Open Access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The CC BY licence permits commercial and noncommercial reuse. To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/art_00025_1
2023-01-23
2024-05-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ajdp/9/1-2/art.9.1-2.25.1_Custers.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1386/art_00025_1&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Albrechts, Louis,, Barbanente, Angela, and Monno, Valeria. ( 2019;), ‘ From stage-managed planning towards a more imaginative and inclusive strategic spatial planning. ’, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 37:8, pp. 1489–506, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654419825655. Accessed 17 February 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Antrop, Marc. ( 1998;), ‘ Landscape change: Plan or chaos?. ’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 41:3&4, pp. 155–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00068-1.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Binder, Thomas,, Brandt, Eva,, Ehn, Pelle, and Halse, Joachim. ( 2015;), ‘ Democratic design experiments: Between parliament and laboratory. ’, CoDesign, 11:3&4, pp. 152–65, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081248?journalCode=ncdn20. Accessed 7 April 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Brandt, Eva,, Binder, Thomas, and Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N.. ( 2013;), ‘ Tools and techniques: Ways to engage telling, making and enacting. ’, in J. Simonsen, and T. Robertson. (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, New York:: Routledge;, pp. 145–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brodersen, Christina,, Dindler, Christian, and Iversen, Ole Sejer. ( 2008;), ‘ Staging imaginative places for participatory prototyping. ’, CoDesign, 4:1, pp. 19–30, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15710880701875043. Accessed 12 November 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Buchenau, Marion, and Suri, Jane Fulton. ( 2000;), ‘ Experience prototyping. ’, in Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques: DIS ’00, Brooklyn, NY, USA, 17–19 August, New York:: ACM Press;, pp. 424–33, https://hci.stanford.edu/dschool/resources/prototyping/SuriExperiencePrototyping.pdf. Accessed 12 November 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cabus, Peter. ( 2018), Strategische Visie Beleidsplan Ruimte Vlaanderen, D/2018/3241/26 , Brussel:: Vlaamse Regering, Departement Omgeving;, https://www.vlaanderen.be/publicaties/beleidsplan-ruimte-vlaanderen-strategische-visie. Accessed 17 July 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Custers, Lieve,, Devisch, Oswald, and Huybrechts, Liesbeth. ( 2020;), ‘ Experiential evaluation as a way to talk about livability in a neighborhood in transformation. ’, in Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020: Participation(s) Otherwise, 15 June, vol. 2, Manizales:: Association for Computing Machinery;, pp. 114–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. DiSalvo, Carl,, Clement, Andrew, and Pipek, Volkmar. ( 2013;), ‘ Communities: Participatory design for, with and by communities. ’, in J. Simonsen, and T. Robertson. (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, New York:: Routledge;, pp. 182–209.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Ehrmann, John R., and Stinson, Barbara L.. ( 1999;), ‘ Joint Fact-Finding and the use of technical experts. ’, in L. E. Susskind,, S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Larmer. (eds), The Consensus Building Handbook, Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage;, pp. 375–400.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Freire, Paulo. ( 1993), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, , 30th anniversary ed.., New York:: Continuum;.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hoffmann, Birgitte, and Munthe-Kaas, Peter. ( 2020;), ‘ Staging urban design through experimentation. ’, in C. Clausen,, D. Vinck,, S. Pedersen, and J. Dorland. (eds), Staging Collaborative Design and Innovation: An Action-Oriented Participatory Approach, Glon:: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited;, pp. 215–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Horelli, Liisa. ( 2002;), ‘ A methodology of participatory planning. ’, in R. B. Bechtel, and A. Churchman. (eds), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, New York:: John Wiley & Sons;, pp. 607–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Huybrechts, Liesbeth,, Benesch, Henric, and Geib, Jon. ( 2017;), ‘ Institutioning: Participatory design, co-design and the public realm. ’, CoDesign, 13:3, pp. 148–59, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15710882.2017.1355006. Accessed 13 June 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Huybrechts, Liesbeth,, Dreessen, Katrien, and Hagenaars, Ben. ( 2018;), ‘ Building capabilities through democratic dialogues. ’, Design Issues, 34:4, pp. 80–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Karasti, Helena. ( 2014;), ‘ Infrastructuring in participatory design. ’, in Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference on Research Papers: PDC ’14, Windhoek Namibia, 6–10 October, Windhoek:: ACM Press;, pp. 141–50, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2661435.2661450. Accessed 20 July 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Karl, Herman A.,, Susskind, Lawrence E., and Wallace, Katherine H.. ( 2007;), ‘ A dialogue, not a diatribe: Effective integration of science and policy through Joint Fact Finding. ’, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 49:1, pp. 20–34, https://scienceimpact.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Dialogue-Diatribe-Joint-Fact-Finding-Science-Policy.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Latour, Bruno. ( n.d.), From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public, MIT Press;, http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/96-DINGPOLITIK-GB.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Lenskjold, Tau Ulv, and Olander, Sissel. ( 2016;), ‘ Design anthropology as ontological exploration and inter-species engagement. ’, in R. C. Smith,, K. T. Vangkilde,, M. G. Kjaersgaard,, T. Otto,, J. Halse, and T. Binder. (eds), Design Anthropological Futures: Exploring Emergence, Intervention and Formation, London and New York:: Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing, Plc;, pp. 249–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Light, Ann, and Seravalli, Anna. ( 2019;), ‘ The breakdown of the municipality as caring platform: Lessons for co-design and co-learning in the age of platform capitalism. ’, CoDesign, 15:3, pp. 192–211, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15710882.2019.1631354. Accessed 3 October 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Mäntysalo, Raine,, Balducci, Alessandro, and Kangasoja, Jonna. ( 2011;), ‘ Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone: Re-examining Lindblom’s partisan mutual adjustment. ’, Planning Theory, 10:3, pp. 257–72, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1473095210397147. Accessed 27 September 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Marres, Noortje. ( 2015), Material Participation, London:: Palgrave Macmillan;.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Matsuura, Masahiro Masa, and Schenk, Todd. (eds) ( 2017), Joint Fact-Finding in Urban Planning and Environmental Disputes, London and New York:: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, Earthscan from Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Mouffe, Chantal. ( 2005), On the Political, London and New York:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Pedersen, Signe,, Dorland, Jens, and Clausen, Christian. ( 2020;), ‘ Staging: From theory to action. ’, in C. Clausen,, D. Vinck, and S. Pedersen. (eds), Staging Collaborative Design and Innovation An Action-Oriented Participatory Approach, Cheltenham:: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited;, pp. 20–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Roosen, Barbara,, Huybrechts, Liesbeth,, Devisch, Oswald, and Van den Broeck, Pieter. ( 2020;), ‘ Dialectical design dialogues: Negotiating ethics in participatory planning by building a critical design atlas. ’, Urban Planning, 5:4, pp. 238–51, https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/3294. Accessed 30 October 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Teli, Maurizio,, Foth, Marcus,, Sciannamblo, Mariacristina,, Anastasiu, Irina, and Lyle, Peter. ( 2020;), ‘ Tales of institutioning and commoning: Participatory design processes with a strategic and tactical perspective. ’, in Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020: Participation(s) Otherwise, vol. 1, Manizales, Columbia, 15 June, Manizales:: ACM;, pp. 159–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Whatmore, Sarah J.. ( 2009;), ‘ Mapping knowledge controversies: Science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. ’, Progress in Human Geography, 33:5, pp. 587–98, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309132509339841. Accessed 15 November 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Custers, Lieve,, Huybrechts, Liesbeth, and Devisch, Oswald. ( 2022;), ‘ A matter of scales: Experiential evaluation as a scaling device to support a scaling platform in a case of urban design. ’, Artifact: Journal of Design Practice, 9:1&2, pp. 25.1–25.23, https://doi.org/10.1386/art_00025_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/art_00025_1
Loading
A matter of scales: Experiential evaluation as a scaling device to support a scaling platform in a case of urban design
Artifact 9, 25.1 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1386/art_00025_1
/content/journals/10.1386/art_00025_1
/content/journals/10.1386/art_00025_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): co-creation; infrastructuring; joint fact finding; participatory mapping; prototyping; staging

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error