skip to main content
10.1145/3210604.3210639acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespdcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Agonistic temporary space - reflections on 'agonistic space' across participatory design and urban temporary use

Published:20 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recent discussions in Participatory Design around infrastructuring and particularly 'agonistic space' offer useful concepts relevant to other fields facing similar issues regarding public settings and related conflicts and contestation among stakeholders. In this paper, 'agonistic space' is used as a conceptual lens to discuss overlapping issues across participatory design and 'temporary use' of space, which is an emerging approach in architecture/planning addressing urban change and land use. This paper focuses in particular on the socio-spatial struggles characterizing 'expanded PD' and temporary use. Furthermore, concepts and issues within discourses and practices of temporary use are identified, which can further expand PD discussions of 'agonistic space'. The paper thus identifies connections between the two practices, which can be a basis for future further research.

References

  1. Pelle Ehn. 2008. Participation in Design Things. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design (PDC '08), 92--101 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bruno Latour. 1999. Pandora's hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Erling Björgvinsson, Pelle Ehn and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2010. Participatory Design and "Democratizing Innovation". In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (PDC'10), 41--50 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Per-Anders Hillgren, Anna Seravalli and Anders Emilson. 2011. Prototyping and infrastructuring in design for social innovation. CoDesign, 7:3-4, 169--183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Chantal Mouffe. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. Verso, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chantal Mouffe. 2000. Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism. 72 Political science series. Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Anders Emilson and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2014. Connecting with the Powerful Strangers: From Governance to Agonistic Design Things. In Ehn, P., Nilsson, E. M., and Topgaard, R. (eds) Making Futures. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 63--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Mahmoud Keshavarz and Ramia Mazé. 2013. Design and Dissensus: framing and staging participation in design research. Design Philosophy Papers, 11:1, 7--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Peter Bishop and Lesley Williams. 2012. The Temporary City. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Florian Haydn and Robert Temel. 2006. Temporary urban spaces: concepts for the use of city spaces. Birkhäuser, Basel.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Philipp Oswalt, Klaus Overmeyer and Philipp Misselwitz (Eds). 2013. Urban Catalyst: The Power of Temporary Use. DOM Publishers, BerlinGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Panu Lehtovuori and Sampo Ruoppila. 2012. Temporary uses as means of experimental urban planning. SAJ Serbian Architecture Journal 4, 29--54Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Quentin Stevens and Kim Dovey. Forthcoming. 'Pop-Ups' and Public Interests: Agile public space in the neoliberal city'. in M. Arefi and C. Kickert (eds) Bottom-Up Urbanism. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanna Hilbrandt. 2016. Insurgent participation: consensus and contestation in planning the redevelopment of Berlin-Tempelhof airport. Urban Geography.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Constantin Petcou and Doina Petrescu. 2016. R-URBAN: Strategies and tactics for participative utopias and resilient practices. in Bradley, K. and Hedren J. (ed.) Green Utopianism, Perspectives, Policies and Micro-Practices. Routledge, 258--277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Donovan Finn. 2014. DIY Urbanism: Implications for Cities. Journal of Urbanism, 7:4, 381--398.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacqueline Groth and Eric Corijn. 2005. Reclaiming Urbanity: Indeterminate Spaces, Informal Actors and Urban Agenda Setting. Urban Studies, 42:3, 503--526.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Michael Gunder. 2010. Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory, 9, 298--314.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Markus Miessen. 2010. The nightmare of participation. Berlin: Sternberg Press Patsy Healey. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sherry R. Arnstein. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216--224Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Claire Colomb. 2017. The Trajectory of Berlin's "Interim Spaces": Tensions and Conflicts in the Mobilisation of "Temporary Uses" of Urban Space in Local Economic Development. in Henneberry, J. (ed.) Transience and Permanence in Urban Development. Wiley, 131--149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lauren Andres. 2013. Differential Spaces, Power Hierarchy and Collaborative Planning: A Critique of the Role of Temporary Uses in Shaping and Making Places. Urban Studies, 50:4, 759--775.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Hella Hernberg. Forthcoming. Mediating Temporary Use in Cities - Accounts of selected practitioners. In Proceedings of NAF/NAAR Symposium 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hella Hernberg and Ramia Mazé. 2017. Architect / Designer as 'Urban Agent': A case of mediating temporary use in cities. In Proceedings of Nordes No 7 (2017): Design + PowerGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. John Henneberry. 2017. Introduction: Temporary Uses as Alternative Practices. In John Henneberry (ed.) Transience and Permanence in Urban Development. Wiley, 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Pelle Ehn. 1988. Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Ph.D. Dissertation. Umeå University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Carl DiSalvo. 2012. Adversarial Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Henri Lefebvre. 1996 {1968} Right to the City (Trans. Kofman, E. and Lebas, E.), in Writings on Cities. Blackwell, Oxford, 61--181.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Henri Lefebvre. 1991 {1974} The Production of Space (Trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith). Blackwell, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Panu Lehtovuori and Sampo Ruoppila. 2017. Temporary Uses Producing Difference in Contemporary Urbanism. In John Henneberry (ed.) Transience and Permanence in Urban Development. Wiley, 47--63.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee Pugalis and Bob Giddins. 2011. A Renewed Right to Urban Life: A Twenty-First Century Engagement with Lefebvre's Initial Cry, Architectural Theory Review, 3(16), 278--295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Jeremy Németh and Joern Langhorst. 2014. Rethinking urban transformation: Temporary uses for vacant land. Cities, 40 (2014), 143--150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Frances Westley, Brenda Zimmerman and Michael Q. Patton. 2007. Getting to Maybe: How the World Is Changed. Vintage Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Karen E. Till and Rachel McArdle. 2015. The Improvisional City: Valuing Urbanity beyond the Chimera of Permanence. Irish Geography, 48:1, 37--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Claire Colomb. 2012. Pushing the urban frontier: Temporary uses of space, city marketing, and the creative city discourse in 2000s Berlin. Journal of Urban Affairs, 34(2), 131--152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Fran Tonkiss. 2013. Austerity Urbanism and the Makeshift City. City, 17:3, 312--324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Anders Emilson, Per-Anders Hillgren and Anna Seravalli. 2014. Designing in the Neighborhood: Beyond (and in the Shadow of) Creative Communities. in Ehn, P., Nilsson, E. M., and Topgaard, R. (eds) Making Futures. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 35--61.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Thomas Binder, Eva Brandt, Pelle Ehn and Joachim Halse. 2015. Democratic design experiments: between parliament and laboratory. CoDesign, 11:3-4, 152--165Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Bo Westerlund. 2009. Design Space Exploration, co-operative creation of proposals for desired interactions with future artefacts. Ph.D. Dissertation. KTH, Stockholm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Agonistic temporary space - reflections on 'agonistic space' across participatory design and urban temporary use

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      PDC '18: Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Situated Actions, Workshops and Tutorial - Volume 2
      August 2018
      230 pages
      ISBN:9781450355742
      DOI:10.1145/3210604

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 20 August 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate49of289submissions,17%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader