Urban Commons: Socially restorative urbanism through the collective action of place-keeping
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Sheffield
Department Name: Landscape Architecture
Abstract
his has given rise to the following questions:
1. Does the collective act of user-centred place-keeping of UCs provide socially restorative benefits?
2. Can UCs create cohesive and resilient communities?
3. If significant benefits are found, how can participation and information of UCs be made more accessible?
The outlined methodologies combine sociology and landscape architecture approaches, including case study analysis, questionnaires (structured questions), interviews (unstructured questions) and social mapping, to ensure a varied and robust set of quantitative and qualitative data. The methods promote collaborative and participatory research to apply current theories to real world cases.
1. Does the collective act of user-centred place-keeping of UCs provide socially restorative benefits?
2. Can UCs create cohesive and resilient communities?
3. If significant benefits are found, how can participation and information of UCs be made more accessible?
The outlined methodologies combine sociology and landscape architecture approaches, including case study analysis, questionnaires (structured questions), interviews (unstructured questions) and social mapping, to ensure a varied and robust set of quantitative and qualitative data. The methods promote collaborative and participatory research to apply current theories to real world cases.
Organisations
People |
ORCID iD |
| K Thwaites (Primary Supervisor) | |
| Aimee Felstead (Student) |
| Description | A conceptual framework for the study of shared residential landscapes as urban commons, based on four preliminary concepts derived from a literature review. These are summarised as four preliminary findings that may guide future empirical research in their testing or confirmation. 1) A common mindset and the city as an incubator: The development of shared values and vision that enable a diverse group of people to work together in pursuit of a common goal within the urban context. The city can enable a common mindset among strangers by creating a critical mass of like-minded individuals and potential for new connections and networks to form. 2) Our space and thin boundaries: Central shared landscapes, a reduction in private space and internalised circulation routes encourage social interaction and a sense of shared ownership. Increased familiarity of trust between neighbours enables boundaries between private and public spaces to be more ambiguous and less defined. 3) Scales of decision-making and affordance: Gaining consensus in large groups can be time consuming and a barrier to getting ideas implemented. Initial findings suggest smaller scale informal decisions can be implemented in smaller working groups. Organisation of urban commons combine both informal and formal structures of decision-making across multiple scales. Opportunities for residents to adapt their own environment should be incorporated into urban commons, rather than presenting residents with a final finished design. 4) New professional role and networks: Intermediary organisations, networks, knowledge sharing and design professionals plan an important role in bottom-up residents groups negotiating top-down frameworks and processes. This suggests professionals, organisations and networks may take on new skills to accommodate this role. |
| Exploitation Route | The conceptual framework lays the groundwork for combining urban commons and urban design theory and guides new lines of inquiry into the spatial understanding of urban commons. In particular, the preliminary nature of the findings calls for further empirical investigation of the concepts within real-world case studies to further develop the framework and its application. |
| Sectors | Communities and Social Services/Policy |
| URL | https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6119 |
| Description | Cohousing Lecture to 3rd Year Undergraduate students, University of Sheffield |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Undergraduate students |
| Results and Impact | I was invited to give a one hour lecture on cohousing and urban commons to 3rd year undergraduate students for a module on housing design, followed by questions and discussion. The module lead later showed me examples of the work submitted and several students had referred to the lecture and related paper to support their design submissions. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| Description | Presentation at the WRDTP 8th Annual Conference |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | A short presentation of my research proposal to a small group of national PGR students in the Cities Environment Liveability cluster for the WRDTP 8th Annual Conference. This was followed up by questions and feedback. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| Description | Research proposal presentation for the Department of Landscape Research Symposium, University of Sheffield |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | I presented my research proposal to approx. 20 PGR students in the department and academic staff. This was followed up by 10 minutes of discussion, including useful feedback that influenced the details of my research proposal. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |