Living Labs, vacancy, and gentrification

Abstract

Published as an open access pre-print on SocArXiv: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/waq2e Abstract This paper evaluates smart city (SC) initiatives in the context of re-using vacant property. More specifically, we focus on living labs (LL) and vacancy in general, as well as on their potential role in fostering creative economy-fuelled gentrification. LL utilise Lo-Fi technologies to foster local digital innovation and support community-focused civic hacking, running various kinds of workshops and engaging with local citizens to co-create digital interventions and apps aimed at 'solving' local issues.Five approaches to LL are outlined and discussed in relation to vacancy and gentrification: pop-up initiatives, university-led activities, community organised venues/activities, citizen sensing and crowdsourcing, and tech-led regeneration initiatives. Notwithstanding the potential for generating temporary and independent spaces for transferring and fostering digital competences and increasing citizens' participation in the SC, we argue that LL largely foster a form of participation framed within a model of civic stewardship for 'smart citizens'. While presented as horizontal, open, and participative, LL and civic hacking are often rooted in pragmatic and paternalistic discourses and practices related to the production of a creative economy and a specific version of SC. As such, by encouraging a particular kind of re-use of vacant space, LL potentially contributes to gentrification pressures within locales by attracting the creative classes and new investment. We discuss these approaches and issues generally and with respect to examples in Dublin, Ireland.

Smart City Implementation and Citizen Engagement in Indonesia

“…In addition to challenges related to technological citizen empowerment, what is also important is how to encourage and engage citizens and pass on the benefits of smart city projects to citizens through regular communication [37]. The government should not depend only on one form of public participation but look for various other forms of participation that citizens can play from the development stage to the implementation of smart city projects [38]. The low competence of citizens related to ICT and the issues being discussed (e.g., energy issues) is a challenge in engaging citizens in smart city projects [8].…”

Explorando cualidades espaciales y sociales de los distritos de innovación como modelo de regeneración urbana: ¿es posible planificar clústeres socialmente inclusivos?

“…Esto se lleva a cabo a través de procesos participativos en la toma de decisiones, y de programas de formación e inserción laboral, de creación de economías locales y de acceso a vivienda asequible. Para Arnstein (1969), participación significa acceso al poder, y los dos conceptos pueden funcionar juntos como reflejo del ideal de sociedad igualitaria y justa en cuanto a la toma de decisiones (Cardullo y Kitchin, 2017). Se trataría, en este estudio, de estrategias de absorción, entendidas como programas que se centran en los residentes del distrito para que sean participantes activos en el desarrollo de este (Morisson y Bevilacqua, 2018).…”

“…Se cree que, sobre la base de una sociedad "inteligente" y aprovechando los avances tecnológicos, es más sencilla y accesible la promoción de procesos participativos centrados en la comunidad. Sin embargo, en la práctica, raramente se articulan procesos de innovación y de ciudad inteligente centrados en la ciudadanía (Cardullo y Kitchin, 2017).…”

Analyzing Citizen Participation and Engagement in European Smart Cities

“…In the literature, smart mobility has also a significant number of selected participation processes. In this case, we identified initiatives aimed to address cyclists’ mobility problems (Cardullo, 2017) and provide more efficient logistic and transport management (Bresciani, Colorni, Lia, Luè, & Nocerino, 2016).…”