The Hackable City Collaborative Citymaking in Urban Living Lab Buiksloterham

Transcription

1 The Hackable City Collaborative Citymaking in Urban Living Lab Buiksloterham NWO Creatieve Industrie Embedded Researcher Dr. Martijn de Waal Prof. dr. José van Dijck Universiteit van Amsterdam One Architecture Pakhuis de Zwijger Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Coöperative Vereniging Buiksloterham The Mobile City 4 juli 2014

2 NWO Creatieve Industrie Embedded Researcher 1. Classification Media & ICT 2. Project title The Hackable City Collaborative Citymaking in Urban Living Lab Buiksloterham 3. Summary Keywords: Social media, urban planning, citymaking, interface studies, governance, co- creation Against the background of the CLICKNL Smart & Social Media and Big Data (Media & ICT) research agendas, this project investigates the role of new media technologies in urban planning, governance, and management - a collection of practices we call citymaking. Two developments drive this project: 1) The rise of big and open data; allowing for new ways to analyze and visualize salient urban issues and development opportunities. 2) The rise of social media platforms; allowing citizens, companies and institutions to (self) organize publics around these issues and opportunities in new ways. These two trends hold the promise of providing citizens with agency to become active change agents in the development of their cities. But they also raise new societal questions about the democratic governance of our cities. Two complementary research lines will explore these issues. Building upon the technological trends mentioned above, an embedded researcher will design three (new media) prototypes to be tested in the redevelopment of Buiksloterham in Amsterdam- Noord, addressing issues of agency. A university researcher will simultaneously study the societal aspects of these new opportunities from the perspective of governance. Point of departure is our notion of the hackable city. In a hackable city, new media technologies are used to open up urban institutions and infrastructures to systemic change in the public interest. It combines top- down smart city technologies with bottom- up smart citizen initiatives. This study results in prototypes for a hackable citymaking process, that can serve as a (commercial) development models for designers, as well as in a scholarly reflection on the societal opportunities and challenges that come with it. 4. Principle applicant (Iris factsheet) Dr. Martijn de Waal Carolina MacGillavrylaan XA Amsterdam 2

3 The Hackable City Co- applicant(s) (Iris factsheet) Prof. dr. José van Dijck, Professor in comparative media, Media and Culture, University of Amsterdam. 6. Consortium partner(s) Partners knowledge institutions Name Institution Role Dr. Martijn de Waal Universiteit van Amsterdam Project leader, researcher Prof. Dr. José van Dijck Universiteit van Amsterdam Scientific advisor Advisory board Dr. Michiel de Lange Universiteit Utrecht / Amsterdam Postdoc researcher (embedded) Drs. Cristina Ampatzidou Universiteit van Amsterdam Junior researcher (embedded) Drs. Froukje Klundert Universiteit van Amsterdam Junior researcher (embedded) Public partners Name Organization Role Mildo van Staden Paul Suijkerbuijk Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Member of the board of advisors Open data expert, member of the board of advisors 3

4 NWO Creatieve Industrie Embedded Researcher Private partners Name Organization, KvK- nr. Role Ir. Matthijs Bouw (director) Frank Alsema (director) One Architecture, Cooperatieve Vereniging Buiksloterham i.o. / 4xM- Mixed Media Match Makers KvK Main private partner; designer, host for embedded researchers Area trailblazer, Represents the main stakeholders engaged in the development of Buiksloterham. Member of the board of advisors. Egbert Fransen (director) Pakhuis de Zwijger KvK Networking & discussion platform for the creative industries based in Amsterdam. Will serve as a platform to connect our research to actors working in the creative industry. Member of the board of advisors. The Mobile City KvK Media partner. International network & think tank on the role of digital media and urban culture 4

5 The Hackable City 7. Research team Research Team Research Team Name Affiliation Expertise Role Applicants Principle Applicant (vrijstelling) Dr. Martijn de Waal UvA New Media, Urban Culture, Urban philosophy, Project leader, University Researcher main research task lies within research line 2 (governance & the hackable city) Co- applicant Prof. Dr. José van Dijck UvA Social Media Theory, Media Studies Board of Advisors, Project overview, Academic Advisor Researchers Post- doc Dr. Michiel de Lange UU /UvA Mobile Media, Ethnography, Urban Culture Main research task is research line 1 (conditions for hackable citymaking) 5

6 NWO Creatieve Industrie Embedded Researcher Junior Researcher Drs. Cristina Ampatzidou Uva Architecture, Design, Planning Main research task is research line 1 (conditions for hackable citymaking), Organizer of research by design trajectory Junior Researcher Drs. Froukje Klundert UvA Architecture, Design, Planning Main research task is research line 1 (conditions for hackable citymaking), Organizer of research by design trajectory Researcher Ir. Matthijs Bouw One Architecture Architecture, Design Planning Will be involved in setting the overall research framework as well as in the research by design trajectory. Advisors & network agents Network Coordinator / Designer Frank Alsema Cooperatieve Vereniging Buiksloterham i.o. / 4xM- Mixed Media Match Makers Design, Urban Development Co- creation Is involved in setting the overall research framework, plays a part in the research by design trajectory and helps in coordinating the network of stakeholders involved in the 6

7 The Hackable City development of Buiksloterham Advisor Ebgert Fransen Pakhuis de Zwijger www. dezwijger.nl Creative Industries, Urban development, co- creation, network cultures Will help connect our research to a broader network of Creative Industries practitioners through the platform of Pakhuis de Zwijger Programme manager Khashayar Ghiabi Pakhuis de Zwijger Creative Industries, Urban development, co- creation, network cultures Will be involved in the organization of our events in Pakhuis de Zwijger Advisor Mildo van Staden Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Governance Is involved in setting the overall research framework, will give guidance as a member of the advisory board Advisor Paul Suijkerbuijk Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Governance, Open Data Is involved in setting the overall research framework, will give guidance as a member of the advisory board Advisor Prof. Dr. Ben Schouten HvA / TUE Citizen Empowerment, Social Design, Games & Play Will give guidance as a member of the advisory board 7

8 NWO Creatieve Industrie Embedded Researcher 8. Classification Hoofddiscipline: Muziek, theater, uitvoerende kunsten en media Subdiscipline Disciplinecode Omschrijving subdiscipline Mediastudies subdiscipline Stadsstudies subdiscipline Planning 9. Previous and future submissions This proposal builds upon the KIEM- proposal Hackable Metropolis Amsterdam (KI ): investigating the future of citymaking in urban lab Buiksloterham. The Kiem proposal is to set the stage for this research program. It consists of a number of networking and agenda- setting events that will be used as the points of departure for this research project. The proposal was honored in June 2014 and will run until December This proposal also builds upon an embedded researcher project funded by CIRCA (Creative Industries Research Centre Amsterdam) called Amsterdam Hackable Metropolis. This project analyses a number of existing projects that can be labeled as hackable citymaking, and uses insights from these case studies in combination with literature analysis to build a framework for hackable citymaking that will serve as the framework for this project. This program runs from November November It is also related to the NWO Alfa Meerwaarde project Smart Cities in a Smart Society, initiated by Martijn de Waal in cooperation with the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving). This project runs from September 2014 January 2015 and studies (by means of a pilot project) the relation between bottom- up and top- down actors in a number of smart city projects in the field of energy. It also studies the discursive frameworks in which they are positioned. Insights will feed into the hackable city framework developed for this project. If granted, this project will run parallel to the KNAW funded research program Social media and the transformation of public space led by prof. dr. José van Dijck (UvA), in cooperation with the WRR (Scientific Council for Government Policy). This project will provide theoretical input on the logic of social media platforms and connect it with issues on the theme of governance. These insights will feed into the framework for hackable citymaking as well as directly into research line 2 (see chapter 13) during the trajectory of this program. We are also a partner in the Horizon application PERSONA, in which we have proposed to conduct research into hackable cities. This proposal was submitted under the call ICT and was led by Trinity College, Dublin. If granted, this H2020 proposal would enable us to broaden our research into hackable cities to an international context: in this H2020- program a proposition is made to further develop the model for hackable citymaking as described in this proposal, and to apply in it Dublin, Lucca and Helsinki, in co- operation with international research partners. We expect to hear from the funding committee in December Researchers in this project also take part in two EU Cost Actions. TU 1204 People Friendly Cities in a Data Rich World and TU 1306 Cyberpark. Results from this research project will feed into these networks. 8

9 The Hackable City (See also Figure 1 on page 19) 10. Institutional setting University of Amsterdam, Department of Media Studies, Amsterdam School of Cultural Analysis, Research Group Social Media and the Transformation of Public Space 11. Period of funding 12 months; February January Motivation for Public- Private Cooperation (696 words) In much of the Western world, the era of top down urban master planning has come to a standstill. This is not only due to the financial crisis but also due to societal changes that involve citizens as amateur- experts, active participants and agents of change. Digital media provide people with tools to organize themselves around collective issues, mobilize publics, and manage social and infrastructural resources in collaborative ways. This occurs in multiple domains, from energy production to the organization of healthcare, from the management of public housing schemes to the appropriation of the urban public sphere. At least those are the promises of digital media technologies and the participatory society. Such developments challenge existing routines of citymaking, the ways in which governmental institutions, (urban) design professionals and citizens call their city into being through processes of top down planning and management together with bottom- up appropriation and social organization. Urban design professionals, tech businesses, governmental institutions and citizens are forced to rethink their stakes and roles. This project s research agenda focuses on the role of digital media platforms in the process of citymaking. In the organization of the project, we bring together four parties or interest communities that have an interest in learning more about this role of digital media platforms in the process of collaborative citymaking: (urban) designers and practitioners in the creative industries, (local) governments & policy makers, development communities and the academic community, each bringing their own research goals to this project. (See table below) This project aims to connect these four research goals in order to allow all these parties to learn from each other and get a firmer grasp on current societal and technological developments. It is this combined approach that is valuable, as the rise of digital media platforms problematizes the existing relationships between the actors involved in citymaking. New opportunities for citizens and development communities to organize themselves, means that (local) governments and (urban) designers have to relate to this change and perhaps take on a new role. This means that the challenges and opportunities for each of these parties cannot be studied in isolation. As academics we can add two important aspects to this collaboration. First, by studying the role of digital media platforms systematically we can theorize this process. This is important, as these theoretical models may play an important role in reproducing or scaling up these initiatives as it reveals their patterns and underlying logic, and thus makes this knowledge available to a wider community of designers, 9

10 NWO Creatieve Industrie Embedded Researcher policy makers and development communities. Second, the critical perspective we take could also play a role in the public debate about these developments. What are we as a society to make of these developments? We think it is this combination of perspectives and public- private cooperation that creates an added value and mutual benefits for the variety of parties involved. Public Private Cooperation Parties involved and their goals Overall research question / project goal: To understand the role of digital media platforms in the process of collaborative citymaking. Community Represented by Goal (Urban) Designers & Architects / Creative Industries at large (Local) Governments & Policy Makers Development communities (consortia of residents, infrastructure providers, housing cooperations) Scientific Community One Architecture Pakhuis de Zwijger (An Amsterdam based debating center focusing on creative industries, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Cooperatieve Vereniging Buiksloterham UvA The Mobile City (An international research network and online platform Exploring the role of designers as arrangeurs or producers in the process of citymaking. How can digital media be employed in the process of citymaking? And is there a new societal role and business model for architects in connecting bottom- up issue- publics with top down institutions through digital media platforms? Learning more about the opportunities and challenges of collaborative citymaking and the changing relationship between governments and citizens this may imply. What role do digital media platforms play in this development? How could governments relate to this development? Learning about the opportunities and pitfalls of the use of digital media platforms in the process of collaborative citymaking. How could it empower them in achieving their goals? And how does it change their relations with local governments and professional designers? Come to a critical understanding and new theoretical models of the role of digital media platforms in the process of collaborative citymaking. 10

11 The Hackable City 13. Description of the proposed research Introduction / project overview and main research question The main research question of this project is: what role can digital media platforms play in the process of collaborative citymaking? Our hypothesis is that the rise of two technological developments open up the process of citymaking to new actors, such as citizens and private parties, and at the same time change the process of citymaking itself. These are: The rise of big and open data allows for new actors and new ways to get insight into urban infrastructures, salient urban issues as well as in opportunities for urban development. The rise of digital (social) media platforms provides citizens and institutions with new tools to organize publics around collective issues, mobilize people, and manage social and infrastructural resources in collaborative ways. Taken together, these two trends hold the promise of providing citizens the opportunity to become active change agents in the development of their cities (Annay & Strohecker, 2008; de Lange & de Waal, 2013; Foth, 2010; Foth, 2011; Hemment & Townsend, 2013; Seltzer & Mahmoudi, 2013a; Williams, Robles, & Dourish, 2008). In addition, they provide new opportunities for professional designers as arrangeurs in citymaking processes. However, this development is far from assured: many instances of digital media platforms in relation to the city (sometimes called smart city technologies) are developed as closed, proprietary systems (Graham & Marvin, 2001; Graham & Crang, 2007; Greenfield, 2013). Either way, as these digital media platforms start to play a role in the making and management of our cities, this development also raises new societal questions about the democratic governance of our cities. To study these developments, we have developed the framework of the hackable city. With a hackable city we mean a city that opens its institutional workings and (digital) infrastructures in such a way that they can be appropriated and improved upon by its citizens, from the perspective of the public interest. For example, an energy grid may be technically and legally designed to treat citizens not just as consumers but to allow them to appropriate the grid cooperatively as energy producers. Another example is that institutional parties who generate and collect data about the city share this in an open source way (free to use and reuse), which enables designers and citizens to create innovative applications based on these data. This framework of the hackable city serves both as an evaluative model that we can use to study the logic of digital media platforms in relation to citymaking, as well as a normative ideal that we can use as a base for comparison when studying aspects of social and technological developments in relation to urban governance. Two mutual complementary research lines will investigate the role of digital media platforms in the process of hackable citymaking as well as its societal consequences. In the first research line, building upon the technological trends mentioned above, a post- doc researcher and two junior researchers will work as embedded researchers to design three (new media) prototypes for citymaking. They will do so in close collaboration with One Architecture, Frank Alsema and the Cooperatieve Vereniging voor de ontwikkeling van Buiksloterham, The Ministry of 11

12 NWO Creatieve Industrie Embedded Researcher Interior and Pakhuis de Zwijger. This research by design approach will give insights in the opportunities for both citizens and professional designers to recast the process of citymaking, by answering the first subquestion: what conditions (on the levels of a) urban infrastructure, b) organization of publics and c) digital media platforms) contribute to or inhibit hackable citymaking? In the second research line, a university researcher will simultaneously study the societal aspects of these new opportunities from the perspective of governance. If a city becomes hackable, what should be the institutional context in which city hacking takes place? And how do new opportunities for self- organization and participation compare to institutional practices of democratic decision- making? In this research line, the second subquestion will be answered: what does the approach of the hackable city mean from a perspective of urban governance? As a setting for our research, we have chosen the context of the redevelopment of Buiksloterham in Amsterdam- Noord. A number of stakeholders in this area have come together to found a cooperatieve vereniging (cooperative foundation) to develop this area in new, collaborative ways, experimenting with new technologies and organizational frameworks. As such the Economic Board of the City of Amsterdam has assigned this area the status of an Urban Living Lab. This will make it an excellent testing and research ground for the hackable city framework. 13a. Relevancy of this project for the strategic research agenda of ClickNL The themes and research questions of this project connect with the CLICKNL (Media & ICT) research agenda on three levels: Smart & social media In the last few years, we have seen a rise in smart city schemes in which city governments often together with research institutions and technology companies - seek to apply new technologies to manage their cities more efficiently and improve the quality of life for their citizens. At the same time, we have seen the growth of many bottom- up initiatives, in which citizens take the initiative to organize a public around a particular issue, be it energy production, organization of healthcare or management of public housing schemes. Social media platforms play an important role in this, as they facilitate the organization and mobilization of these publics. This project seeks to reconcile the two approaches of smart and social city, and explore opportunities for designers to play a central role in connecting these two dynamics. Can designers provide the tools to make data legible and actionable for citizens? These questions are addressed from a practical as well as a societal perspective. Big data Big and open data play a central role in this research project. Data collection and registration is a core part of smart city technologies; it is data collected through sensor networks and data mining that allow for the customization and flexible adaptation of urban infrastructures. On an aggregate level, urban data assembled by various parties can give new insights in urban dynamics, ranging from air quality to traffic, from social issues to personalized recommendations. We will research the opportunities of these 12

13 The Hackable City big and open data schemes to address urban issues, to forge networked publics, to engage people in complex issues, and to provide them with a horizon for action. Design thinking This project assumes a research by design approach to develop prototypes for hackable citymaking. The design of prototypes for hackable citymaking in this project allows us to test how in the particular context of Buiksloterham digital media platforms can contribute in a positive way to societal challenges. This approach is further explained in chapter 13b. methodology. 13 b. Scientific quality Theoretical framework Our research into hackable citymaking takes place against the backdrop of a broader societal discussion about the changing relationship between citizens and governments. How do we connect the top- down with the bottom- up? This is one of the main challenges that have emerged in a variety of societal domains: from politics (Boutellier, 2011; Raad voor maatschappelijke ontwikkeling, 2013) and urban governance (Bakker, Denters, Oude Vrielink, & Klok, 2012; Tonkens, Verhoeven, & Roggeveen, 2011; Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid, 2012) to architecture and urban planning (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving & Uhrhan Design, 2012). The diagnosis in most of these studies is similar: from a bottom- up perspective there is a growing lack of civic trust in existing institutions, and an increasing turn amongst citizens towards self- organization. At the same time, governments have recognized this trend and have taken an interest in what the Dutch government calls the participation society and have started to ask themselves how they should relate to bottom- up societal initiatives. However, as many have observed, in their approaches so far, the role of citizens is rather instrumental (mobilizing citizens to carry out government policy), rather than engaging citizens also in processes of agenda- setting, ideation, co- creation and execution of policies. Hence, a number of studies have proposed alternative frameworks that both theorize this current societal situation as well as serve as new models for urban development and governance such as the improvising society (Boutellier, 2011), urban living labs (Friedrich, Karlsson, & Federley, 2013), the energetic society (Hajer, 2011), or the spontaneous city (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving & Uhrhan Design, 2012). Many of these frameworks focus on urban governance and city planning. What is needed, these studies claim, is a model for urban development and governance that does bring top- down and bottom- up together, in which democratically chosen governments set the legal and normative agenda, but provide opportunities for a range of actors to act within these frameworks and appropriate the city and its infrastructures. This study builds upon these societal developments and studies but aims to apply them to an important technological development: the rise of so- called smart city. (Allwinkle & Cruickshank, 2011; Caragliu, Bo, & Nijkamp, 2011; Hollands, 2008; Vanolo, 2014) Various definitions of this term abound, a comprehensive one by the EU describes it as follows: [a smart city is ] a system of people interacting with and using flows of energy, materials, services and financing to catalyse sustainable economic development, 13

14 NWO Creatieve Industrie Embedded Researcher resilience, and high quality of life; these flows and interactions become smart through making strategic use of information and communication infrastructure and services in a process of transparent urban planning and management that is responsive to the social and economic needs of society In the IT- industry, the smart city buzzword is often invoked to describe new kinds of urban infrastructures that can be managed and controlled efficiently in a customized way. Examples are: smart meters that optimize energy consumption, dynamic pricing on toll roads or urban control rooms that monitor public spaces as well as social media activities. Initiatives by large technological companies and city governments to realize these schemes have received a lot of critique. One of these is that they tend to be reductionist: these schemes reduce cities to the efficient management of infrastructural services, and that doesn t do right to complexities of urban life in which its very messiness is seen as a key quality rather than something to overcome. The modernist aim at complete control from above is diametrically opposed to an on the ground view of citizens themselves who through their everyday practices bring the city into being, spatially, socially and mentally. (Greenfield, 2013; Shepard & Greenfield, 2007; Townsend, 2013; de Waal, 2009; de Waal, 2013) Another critique is the neo- liberal political- economic model in which these infrastructures are developed: usually in a top- down manner, in closed proprietary systems, offered as personalized services to consumers aimed at increasing shareholder value, rather than as open- structured common- goods available for citizens and contributing to the public interest. (Greenfield, 2013) In this study we want to use a research by design approach to investigate how we can connect the design and management of new infrastructural smart city technologies with the new paradigms for citymaking in the domains of urban planning and governance that seek to combine top- down and bottom- up. Many of the studies in the latter field recognize the fact that social media platforms and big and open data provide new affordances for bottom up self- organization around issues and infrastructures, but not much is known about how they might do so and how the rise of these platforms fits with the larger issue of governance in citymaking. These questions are especially relevant in relation to the rise of the smart city paradigm, as they might provide alternative models for ownership, development and management of these infrastructures that provides more room for citizen initiatives. To make this leap we will need to apply (critical) insights from media studies on social media platforms and focus on the way these platforms work to represent and assemble publics around (urban) issues. Various authors have shown how these social networks may do so, however, they have also pointed out problematic issues in relation to the commercial exploitation of these platforms. (Van Dijck, 2013; Gillespie, 2010a; Varnelis, 2008) To combine these various disciplinary perspectives on our research topic, we have developed the model of the hackable city. We will use this framework in both a normative and an evaluative way. As a normative model for citymaking it allows us to bring together frameworks on citymaking from various perspectives and combine them with recent insights from media studies on online collaboration. As a normative model, the notion of the hackable city draws upon the ethic of hacking as described by Himanen and Levy as well as models of collaborative peer- production (Benkler, 2006; Himanen, 2010; Levy, 2001; Zapico Lamela, 2013). What these theories have in common 14

15 The Hackable City is that they describe hacking as a particular attitude, that can be described as a practical, learning- by- doing approach to the world (and computer systems in particular). Values such as openness and the sharing of resources are held in high esteem. Building upon these insights, in the framework of this research, we use the word hackable to refer to an attitude or approach in which citizens or designers envision themselves as social change agents. That is: they make use of digital tools to appropriate ( hack ) their environments, infrastructure or social milieu, not so much for personal gain, as well as from the perspective of the public interest. 1 In other words: in a hackable city, the urban (data) infrastructure is designed in an open way, so that it can be appropriated and incrementally improved upon by various stakeholders. This principle of the hackable city alters the relationships among traditional stakeholders by shifting the roles of institutions and designers from that of a top- down masterplanner to parties that create opportunities around existing processes, and that make the city hackable for its citizens. The research line on urban governance will thus look at the interest and responsibilities of various parties involved: citizens, professional designers, commercial players and local governments. As such we build upon research describing the new interrelationships in which urban innovation takes place, through what sometimes has been called Public- Private- People- Partnerships (Tang & Hämäläinen, 2014) or the Quadruple and even Quintuple Helix (Baccarne, Mechant, Schuurma, De Marez, & Colpaert, 2014; Carayannis & Campbell, 2011) and connect it with broader theories on participative planning, open innovation and urban living labs (Almirall & Wareham, 2008; Seltzer & Mahmoudi, 2013b). In addition to the reports described in the introduction of the theory- section (chapter 13b) we will also take inspiration from the work of Boyte, and especially his concept of Civic Agency (Boyte, 2005; Boyte, 2012). The model of the hackable city serves also as a descriptive or evaluative framework. We have based the hackable city model on Bruno Latour s notion of a parliament of things, or more precise his description of publics that assemble around matters of concern (Latour, 2005). This model provides three modes of analysis: first, the issue (or infrastructure) at stake, and the question who has the power to (co- )define the issue, and how it is visualized or communicated; second the public (Who is included and excluded? How is it represented and organized?), and the assembly (the social media platform or system through which the public is assembled, the parties involved in its construction and design and the way it allows or inhibits the public to act). At this level, the model addresses the questions: how can the model of the hackable city be operationalized? What conditions contribute to or inhibit the success of hackable citymaking? As a final note, the concept of the hackable city should not be understood as a naïve example of solutionism (Morozov, 2013). The use of new media and infinite connectivity among urbanites is not a panacea to all urban problems. Rather, we have coined this concept as a heuristic lens that should make alternative models for urban governance and management in relation to smart cities technologies visible, as well as foreground the normative aspects in the discussions around smart cities. While doing that, we will have an eye for both critical reflection on the working of digital technologies (Van Dijck, 2013; Gillespie, 2010b) in the organization of publics around 1 for other sources of inspiration, see Burgess, Foth, & Klaebe, 2006; Felson & Spaeth, 1978; Ferguson, 2014; Foster, 2011; Ostrom, Burger, Field, Norgaard, & Policansky, 1999; Paulos,

16 NWO Creatieve Industrie Embedded Researcher issues, while also trying to point to opportunities for more participatory models of citymaking. Methodology & interdisciplinary character In this project we focus on Buiksloterham, a former industrial area in Amsterdam Noord where do- it- yourself citizen- driven experiments meet with institutional policy- making and facilitation. Urban transformation in Buiksloterham is driven by ideas of self- reliance, collective ownership, circularity and open design processes with regards to energy, water and food production. These experiments of hackable city making happen on various levels. On an infrastructural level, digital technologies are being used extensively, leading to on the level of social organization the formation of new self- organized publics; a community of smart citizens committed to turn Buiksloterham into a smart and social city with sensing and measuring technologies. In addition, from the perspective of governance, local authorities also negotiate policy and regulations with the first pioneers to inhabit the area. Involved stakeholders include the municipality, utilities companies, small and larger entrepreneurs, homebuilders and building associations, developers, research and education institutions as well as creative and cultural actors. Many of these parties have organized themselves in the Cooperative Vereniging Buiksloterham, who is a partner in this project. The central methodology is a research by design approach or a design research method (Laurel, 2003; McCormack, Dorin, & Innocent, 2004). This means that we will research opportunities and challenges for hackable citymaking by designing three prototypes that we will then use as cultural probes or conversation pieces (Galloway, 2011). This process follows five phases: Figure 1. Research by design approach Each of these phases is characterized by a particular approach. In the first phase, a number of stakeholders and issues are identified. This will take place previous to this project, in the context of the KIEM project mentioned above (chapter 9). An example of an issue that could emerge is the organization of the energy provision for Buiksloterham in such a way that various parties can work together to produce and exchange green energy in a circular economy. In phase 2 we will organize a first workshop that brings together a number of stakeholders with an interest in this issue. In a co- creation session we then define a number of criteria, challenges and opportunities that need to be met. Here we follow the hackable city matrix (see table below), by structuring the session along three levels. First, what ways are there to visualize the issue or get new insights? What data is 16

17 The Hackable City available, what data would we need? Second, how can a public be organized around this issue? What aspects of individual contributors need to be represented in the platform in order for an exchange to function? How can the public as a whole be represented? Third, we will look at the level of the assembly, or the platform: what kind of agency does it need to provide to whom, and how can that be achieved? In phase 3 we will use the input from the co- creation session to design prototypes addressing the criteria mentioned. To stick with the energy example: perhaps we need to make a real time energy map, that visualizes energy use in the area, so we can better spot opportunities for energy exchange. To give an example: perhaps a heat generating datacenter is situated close to a greenhouse complex that needs heat to grow tomatoes. Visualizing connections like that opens up new opportunities for development. On the level of the public: perhaps we need reputation systems to rate energy production, or meters that measure individual as well as collective use, and visualize these in innovative ways so they could motivate users to reduce their energy consumption, for instance by introducing gamification elements. Third, on the assembly level, we may need a platform that allows for dynamically priced transactions in energy. Although these examples sound rather technical, our focus will be on the level of the digital media platform as means of representation of issues and publics as well as on the level of analysis of the logic of these platforms in relation to providing agency to various actors. In phase 4 we will either test the prototypes with the stakeholders and use them as conversation pieces to create scenarios. To what extent do or could these prototypes function? What are the challenges? What could they mean in terms of governance? The results from these sessions will be complemented with semi- structured interviews with key stakeholders and with a (cultural) analysis of similar, existing projects. For this analysis we will again use the three- level hackable city- matrix (issue, public, assembly or platform) to analyze their interfaces, as well as the second matrix to analyze their implications for governance (see tables below). In phase 5 we will combine the results and make an analysis from the perspective of the various roles that various actors (designers, policy makers, citizens and development communities) may have in this process. Input for this analysis will also be gathered during three sessions in Pakhuis de Zwijger for which representatives from these three communities will be invited to give their input. While we believe in the strength of this model, we should reflect on potential pitfalls and weaknesses in this approach. First, we cannot assume a position as neutral observers. Throughout the process we need to critically reflect on our involvement. Second we have to take differences and potential frictions into account as different types of organizations have different vocabularies, structures and cultures. Findings may not apply or be equally valid for all of these organizations. Similarly, in a super- diverse city such as Amsterdam, ideas about livable cities and participation may differ widely. Third, we must reflect on issues of access, representation and politics in our research approach. Who are actually allowed to engage in our experiments with city hacking processes? 17

18 NWO Creatieve Industrie Embedded Researcher Research matrix to be applied in the research by design process Q1 What conditions contribute to or inhibit hackable city making? Hackable City Analytical Matrix (1) On the level of the issue or infrastructures: - what infrastructures / issues are most suitable for hackable city making? - What data is available or needed to analyze the issue at stake? - How can these issues best be visualized / communicated? On the level of the public: - how is it represented and organized, both on the level of individual members as well as on a collective level? - who is included and excluded? On the level of the assembly (or the digital media platform) - who is designing it from what interests? - How does it afford hackable city making? Q2 What does the approach of the hackable city mean from a perspective of urban governance? Hackable City Analytical Matrix (2) What current laws and standards prevent / enable hackable city making? To what extent does the logic of digital media platforms used empower or disenfranchise citizens and development communities? How can a bottom- up experiment be institutionalized? In what institutional settings could the model of the hackable city thrive? What are or could be the mutual relationships / roles of governments, designers and citizens in this model? Contribution to new knowledge This project develops a citizen- centric perspective on the future of citymaking by combining the strengths of various stakeholders involved. Smart cities are a recent hot topic in urban policy, design, and applied technology research. The humanities and social sciences however, have given it far less attention. Our project aims to set the agenda for critical academic reflection on this participatory techno- urban future, and for 18

19 The Hackable City design professionals who want to engage with this new domain as part of their professional practice. Scope and (International) positioning As mentioned above (chapter 9), this project builds upon a number of current research programs, and aims to result in an agenda that can be further developed in international research programs. Figure 2 (below) explains how these projects are interrelated: Fig 2. Relation of this project to other research projects. 19

20 NWO Creatieve Industrie Embedded Researcher 13c. Utilisation/relevance Academic, Economic & Societal Validation As described under question 12, our project has four programmatic goals that are relevant to four different communities : 1. Academia This study will lead to new knowledge and (critical) theoretical models about the practices of citymaking with digital media. An important aspect is also the exchange of knowledge between practitioners, policy makers and academia. 2. Urban designers and the creative industries The project provides alternative organizational models and design processes, conceptual foundations to reformulate their roles in the process of city making, and ultimately potential business models. 3. (Local) governments and policy makers The project provides a set of best practices about how to engage citizens in city making, and steps policy makers and municipalities may take to set the conditions that enable such collaborations, as well as concepts to be brought into normative discussions on the future of citymaking. 4. Citizens & development communities For citizen collectives the project offers a framework for collaborative citymaking. One of the outcomes is a toolkit for hackable city making (see 16. deliverables) that describes examples of technologies and design criteria that can be applied to other projects as well. Relevance for the scientific foundation of creative industries As argued in section 12, the value of our scientific contribution lies in the way we construct theoretical models and logics from everyday practices of citymaking through digital media platforms, which could turn one- off practices into a set of principles that can be applied in other circumstances. Second, our methodology of research by design in itself could also be applied in a broader creative industries context. Contribution to ClickNL networkagenda As explained in chapter 13a the project fits in the CLICKNL Media & ICT agenda, and specifically contributes to the subfields of smart & social media, big data, design thinking, and to a lesser degree business innovation, as the prototypes developed could be instances of new business models for the creative industries. Expediency of prototypes The development of the prototypes is essential to the project as a whole. We use these prototypes as the central objects in our research project. 13 d. Cohesion of the research The main research question is divided into two research lines. Both will be overseen by the university researcher, who will also lead the project. The first research line 20