This article was downloaded by [UQ Library]On 03 November 2014 At 1920Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954 Registeredoffice Mortimer House 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JH UK

Journal of Urban TechnologyPublication details including instructions for authors andsubscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloicjut20

Playing the City Public Participation ina Contested Suburban AreaMaaike LauwaertPublished online 30 Nov 2009

To cite this article Maaike Lauwaert (2009) Playing the City Public Participation in a ContestedSuburban Area Journal of Urban Technology 162-3 143-168 DOI 10108010630730903278611

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg10108010630730903278611

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor amp Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theldquoContentrdquo) contained in the publications on our platform However Taylor amp Francisour agents and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy completeness or suitability for any purpose of the Content Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authorsand are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor amp Francis The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses actions claimsproceedings demands costs expenses damages and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposes Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction redistribution reselling loan sub-licensingsystematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden Terms ampConditions of access and use can be found at httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

Playing the City Public Participationin a Contested Suburban Area

Maaike Lauwaert

LET me start with an exceptional design for a construc-

tion toy by Annechien van Litsenburg a young Dutch

designer The construction toy allows the player to

build a mosque from wooden building blocks This design is

exceptional because not many building toys refer to non-

Western architecture Why start with an example of a toy Toys

illustrate the connection and the relationship between the material

and the social very fittingly (See Figure 1)

Toys have the capacity to bridge and mediate between

societal processes and cultural changes on the one hand and the

individual on the other hand Through toys a changing society

is brought into the private home This non-western architectural

building toy that allows the player to create a mosque or to inte-

grate Arabian architectural elements within other constructions

brings an increasingly ethnically mixed and diverse society into

the private home of players for the first time Historian Cammie

McAtee writes that these sorts of architectural building toys are

a means to come to terms with changing urban configurations

and the related societal and cultural changes because these toys

make ldquonew ideas of urban form comfortable and familiarrdquo As

such toys can be considered to function as mediators between

the outside world and the private sphere

Not only do toys mirror societal and cultural change they

will often promote reinforce and stimulate these changes

McAtee

Journal of Urban Technology Volume 16 Numbers 2ndash3 pages 143ndash168

Copyright 2009 by The Society of Urban Technology

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN 1063-0732 paperISSN 1466-1853 online

DOI 10108010630730903278611

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

For example nineteenth century construction toys answered to the

need for indoor toys while at the same time they reinforced the

domestication of child and play Growing fears of the corrupting

forces of the new industrial metropolis prompted many middle-

and upper-class families to keep their children safely inside the

family home In their private playrooms children played with con-

struction and mechanical toys that were designed to keep children

occupied for hours while they were safely indoors Most construc-

tion toys were not suitable to be played with outdoors because the

player needed a large clean surface to build and construct upon

Construction toys thus not only answered the need for indoor

toys they also promoted and reinforced domestication

Toys and players are also connected to one another in a more

direct way in and through play From a voluntaristic point of view

FIGURE 1The Mosque Building Toy

Source A van Litsenburg

144 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

one would argue that players can and will play any sort of game

imaginable notwithstanding the toy they are using and the possibi-

lities that the toy offers However this view does not account for

the fact that toys and the way they are designed do in fact shape

promote and facilitate certain play practices and not others

From a technologically deterministic point of view one would

argue that toys determine to the full extent how one can and will

play with a given toy However this stance does not take into

account the fact that players use toys in unpredicted and divergent

ways as well In other words toys players and play practices

co-evolve

Scripts in Urban Environments

This triangular relationship between the material social and indi-

vidual also manifests itself within built environments How a

neighborhood is designed the layout of the streets the architec-

ture of the buildings the proximity to a park or a playground

access to public transport or schools all shape to a certain

extent the ways in which these spaces can and will be used

Urban spaces and their designs facilitate and promote certain

uses of these spaces and not others they offer a framework for

action and possible uses The concept of ldquoscriptrdquo from Science

and Technology Studies (STS) ldquotries to capture how technological

objects enable and constrainrdquo Madeleine Akrich compared tech-

nological scripts with film scripts that ldquodefine a framework of

actionrdquo Ralf Brand refers in his article in this issue to the

related concepts of ldquoprogramrdquo used by Bruno Latour and his

concept of ldquoagendardquo These three concepts all refer to the fact

that the built environment can have intended or unintended

designed and facilitated or unforeseen and divergent effects

upon its users As Nelly Oudshoorn and Trevor Pinch ascertain

ldquothere may be one dominant use of a technology or a prescribed

userdquo but ldquothere is no one essential use that can be deduced from

the artifact itselfrdquo As with toys people might use urban spaces

in unexpected ways and as such ldquodeviaterdquo from the projected

and facilitated uses envisioned by urban planners and designers

For example skateboarders might do tricks and practice their

skills on stairs and handrails that were designed and constructed

simply to help people get from point A to point B In doing this

skateboarders use designed urban spaces in unexpected ways that

deviate from the envisioned use

Lauwaert

Oudshoorn and Pinch

Akrich

Akrich and Latour

Oushoorn and Pinch

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

So on the one hand we have design scripts that aim at

configuring users and uses The practice of user configuration

encompasses many different forms and tactics ldquodefining enabling

constraining representing imposing and controllingrdquo On the

other hand we have users who appropriate technologies and their

discourses Users will more often than not in adopting a new arti-

fact adapt it modify design reconfigure or resist Users might

change the physical properties of an artifact or accommodate the

rules to their personal wishes Brand refers to this in his article

on Belfast as an ldquooutsmarting responserdquo to an undesired script

He stresses that one should ldquonot underestimate the creativity

energy and tenacity of people to circumvent tamper with or

reinterpret artifacts with undesired scriptsrdquo In other words not

only do people use material objects in unforeseen ways (as do

skateboarders for example) they might also deliberately outsmart

these objects

Not only can urban spaces be used in unexpected ways they

also mirror societal and cultural aspects of these spaces and

promote certain actions and changes A dilapidated neighborhood

with graffiti on buildings derelict houses and trash lying around

for example both mirrors the downfall of this neighborhood and

promotes more antisocial behavior As Anique Hommels ascer-

tains cities are ldquonever purely technicalrdquo but rather a ldquolsquoseamless

webrsquo of material and social elementsrdquo Recognizing the push

and pull between the material and the social in built environments

is in line with Akrichrsquos point that in order to understand the

dynamic between designers and users one needs to ldquogo back

and forth continually between the designer and the user between

the designerrsquos projected user and the real user between the

world inscribed in the object and the world described by its

displacementrdquo

As the articles in this issue argue and show us the co-evolution

of the material and the social is an urgent matter in a world that is

urbanizing rapidly and that is characterized by (ethnic) conflict

The interrelationship between the social and the material is

acutely visible in contested urban spaces Urban interventions

that aim at changing the built environment and the social fabric

of an urban core are widespread and range as Brand states from

ldquoblunt social engineeringrdquo to ldquoCrime Prevention Through

Environmental Designrdquo Scott Bollens rightfully points out that

besides acknowledging the co-evolution of the material and the

social we need to better understand why certain urban interven-

tions have the desired outcome and others not The articles in

Mackay et al

Oudshoorn and Pinch

Lieshout et al

Brand ldquoUrban Artifacts rdquo

Brand ldquoFrom the Guest Editor rdquo

Hommels

Akrich

146 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

this issue raise different points related to this question of (un)suc-

cessful urban interventions Brand for example finds that scripts

should only be inscribed within designed artifacts when all

affected groups approve Bollens further stresses that the multiple

meanings and effects of material interventions should always be

taken into account Successful and accepted urban interventions

can for example be achieved through public participation in

(re-)design projects Brand refers to this when he states that

ldquofrank and open dialoguerdquo should be the first step of any design

process In her article in this issue Angela Stienen discusses

different instances of local planning in the Colombian metropolis

Medellın

The current article presents one case study of public partici-

pation in urban planning the Face Your World project that took

place in 2005 in the suburban area Slotervaart close to the

Dutch city of Amsterdam Face Your World was a participation

project that aimed at engaging both younger and immigrant inhabi-

tants of Slotervaart in the urban renewal of their neighborhood

The goal was to design a new neighborhood park that would be

supported by the different ethnic groups in Slotervaart Dutch

artist Jeanne van Heeswijk initiated this public participation and

design project1 The core of the project was a computer gamedesign tool called the Interactor The participants worked

between January and July 2005 on the design of this park and on

March 1 2006 the city council of Amsterdam approved the

design If all goes as planned the park will be realized by 2010

The analysis of the case study is based on 28 in-depth interviews

with different stakeholders involved in this participation process

The article asks in what form and under which circumstances

public participation in urban planning can be an effective means

in the process of seeking the acceptance of urban interventions

from affected groups This article starts with a short introduction

to both historical and contemporary Slotervaart then outlines

briefly some key literature on public participation in urban

planning and finally assesses the Face Your World participation

project in terms of its successes and failures as a public partici-

pation project in urban planning

Slotervaart A Contested Suburban Area

The Netherlands has been struggling with contested (sub)urban

areas for decades Tensions have risen considerably over the last

1Van Heeswijk developed the first

version of Face Your World in

2002 for the Wexner Center of the

Arts Columbus Ohio USA

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

several years because a series of violent crimes the murder of film-

maker Theo van Gogh the rise of populist politicians and post 911

discourses on problems both real and imagined related to

immigrants in general and Muslims in particular One of these

crisis-ridden suburban areas in the Netherlands is Slotervaart

one of the Western Garden Cities (Westelijke Tuinsteden) that sur-

round the city of Amsterdam These garden cities were built after

the Second World War according to the utopian CIAM (Congres

International drsquoArchitecture Moderne) tradition (See Figure 2)

CIAM a think tank of modern architects such as Le Corbusier

and Gerrit Rietveld was established in 1928 and disbanded in

1959 Dutch architect and urban planner Cornelis van Eesteren

was the CIAM president from 1930 to 1947 He designed the

general expansion plan (AUP Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan) for

Amsterdam in 1934 The Western Garden Cities were part of

this general expansion plan Air light and space were leading

principles in the design of the houses and the neighborhoods

This stood in contrast to the small and dark living spaces in the

overcrowded city center of Amsterdam

FIGURE 2Map of Amsterdam 1935

Showing Expansion to the West of the City

Source ldquoAlgemeen Uitbreidingsplanrdquo

148 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

In 1954 the satellite city Slotervaart was built The lay-out of

this suburb was spacious the streets and boardwalks were broad

and the apartment buildings were set apart from each other so

that sunlight could enter each apartment (See Figure 3) The apart-

ment blocks were laid out in straight lines with green areas for

recreation and play in between the blocks or they were lined

around a central square with shops

The Western Garden Cities of Amsterdam have seen a

decline in reputation over the last three decades Their reputation

has shifted from utopian and visionary living areas to neighbor-

hoods fraught with social economic ethnical and infrastructural

problems The city of Amsterdam researches the living quality

and safety in the various boroughs of Amsterdam on a bi-

monthly basis and publishes the results online Slotervaart is the

suburb with the lowest percentage of what is called ldquosocial

qualityrdquo Only 41 percent of respondents reacted positively on

FIGURE 3A 1968 Aerial Photo of Slotervaart Showing the Spacious

Layout of the Apartment Blocks

Source J van Heeswijk et al

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

statements concerning the social quality of the borough Together

with two other boroughs Slotervaart has the highest percentage

(22 percent) of inhabitants who avoid certain areas of Slotervaart

because they feel these areas are unsafe Also Slotervaart has the

highest percentage (36 percent) of inhabitants who feel unsafe in

their neighborhood These numbers have stayed the same or wor-

sened since 2007 Slotervaart is an ethnically mixed neighborhood

with 43 percent of its 44185 inhabitants being non-western

immigrants and 12 percent western immigrants The largest com-

munity of immigrants consists of Moroccan people (17 percent of

the total population of Slotervaart) Turkish immigrants are the

second largest group in Slotervaart (85 percent) followed by

immigrants from Suriname (74 percent) and the Antilles (09

percent) Ten percent of the 43 percent non-western immigrants

are unemployed

In 2007 The New York Times published an article on

Slotervaart titled The End of Tolerance in Amsterdam The

author Erich Wiedemann aptly summarized some of the key

problems of this borough

Crime and unemployment are significantly higher [in

Slotervaart] than the national average and one in three of

the neighborhoodrsquos young people are high-school dropouts

( ) There is little evidence of Amsterdamrsquos typical charm

in Slotervaart a neighborhood where bleak concrete apart-

ment blocks cluster around a futuristic-looking town hall

Almost half of Slotervaartrsquos 45000 residents are foreign

immigrants and it is not uncommon to see eight-member

families living in cramped 50-square-meter (540-square-

foot) apartments And itrsquos perhaps no coincidence that the

police station is across the street from the mosque

The ward alderman of Slotervaart Ineke Ketelaar explained in an

interview that in the last fifteen years mainly large families have

been assigned apartments in the boroughs of Amsterdam West

because these apartments are relatively big according to Dutch

standards2 These large families were mainly immigrant families

Because of this policy many large immigrant families now live in

the garden cities These families have as Ketelaar explained a

hard time coping there is a high percentage of unemployment

among these families The first generation immigrants feel isolated

because they might not be able to speak or write Dutch and the

apartments are often not big enough to give every child a private

ldquoCijfers rdquo

ldquoKerncijfers rdquo

ldquoKerncijfers rdquo

ldquoBevolking rdquo

Wiedemann

2The interviews conducted for this

research were held in Dutch and

translated by the author

Individuals are referred to only by

their first names while

professional stakeholders are

referred to by their first and last

names and their role in the

participation project All people

who were interviewed gave their

consent to the use of their names

and opinions

150 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

statements concerning the social quality of the borough Together

with two other boroughs Slotervaart has the highest percentage

(22 percent) of inhabitants who avoid certain areas of Slotervaart

because they feel these areas are unsafe Also Slotervaart has the

highest percentage (36 percent) of inhabitants who feel unsafe in

their neighborhood These numbers have stayed the same or wor-

sened since 2007 Slotervaart is an ethnically mixed neighborhood

with 43 percent of its 44185 inhabitants being non-western

immigrants and 12 percent western immigrants The largest com-

munity of immigrants consists of Moroccan people (17 percent of

the total population of Slotervaart) Turkish immigrants are the

second largest group in Slotervaart (85 percent) followed by

immigrants from Suriname (74 percent) and the Antilles (09

percent) Ten percent of the 43 percent non-western immigrants

are unemployed

In 2007 The New York Times published an article on

Slotervaart titled The End of Tolerance in Amsterdam The

author Erich Wiedemann aptly summarized some of the key

problems of this borough

Crime and unemployment are significantly higher [in

Slotervaart] than the national average and one in three of

the neighborhoodrsquos young people are high-school dropouts

( ) There is little evidence of Amsterdamrsquos typical charm

in Slotervaart a neighborhood where bleak concrete apart-

ment blocks cluster around a futuristic-looking town hall

Almost half of Slotervaartrsquos 45000 residents are foreign

immigrants and it is not uncommon to see eight-member

families living in cramped 50-square-meter (540-square-

foot) apartments And itrsquos perhaps no coincidence that the

police station is across the street from the mosque

The ward alderman of Slotervaart Ineke Ketelaar explained in an

interview that in the last fifteen years mainly large families have

been assigned apartments in the boroughs of Amsterdam West

because these apartments are relatively big according to Dutch

standards2 These large families were mainly immigrant families

Because of this policy many large immigrant families now live in

the garden cities These families have as Ketelaar explained a

hard time coping there is a high percentage of unemployment

among these families The first generation immigrants feel isolated

because they might not be able to speak or write Dutch and the

apartments are often not big enough to give every child a private

ldquoCijfers rdquo

ldquoKerncijfers rdquo

ldquoKerncijfers rdquo

ldquoBevolking rdquo

Wiedemann

2The interviews conducted for this

research were held in Dutch and

translated by the author

Individuals are referred to only by

their first names while

professional stakeholders are

referred to by their first and last

names and their role in the

participation project All people

who were interviewed gave their

consent to the use of their names

and opinions

150 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

room Therefore many children and teenagers get together out on

the street in groups which adds to the aforementioned feelings

of threat The Dutch media and politicians refer to these children

and teenagers as ldquohangjongerenrdquo which translates as ldquoloitering

teenagersrdquo

Urban Renewal

The urban renewal of the garden cities was initiated in the late

1980s The reasons for the renewal were that the houses built in

the 1950s were deteriorating there was an urgent need for more

homes to deal with the ever-expanding population of Amsterdam

and the boroughs were not a popular destination for those who

wanted to leave the city center of Amsterdam People who could

afford it preferred a private freestanding home in a green

suburb rather than an apartment in one of the apartment blocks

in the garden cities In the historical section of the Slotervaart

website we can read that due to the need for new homes in the

1950s and 1960s the focus was on fast and large-scale production

of similar homes Therefore these boroughs are now cheap to live

in This means that people who climb up on the social ladder will

leave these neighborhoods and move to a more upscale area

leaving the disadvantaged and underprivileged behind Those

who cannot afford to move out of Slotervaart have no option but

to stay People do not live in Slotervaart by choice they live

there because they do not have the option to move out

There are two important players in the renewal of the Western

Garden Cities the boroughs or wards of Amsterdam West (they all

have their own ward alderman and legislative council) and the

housing corporations that own the houses in the garden cities The

corporation De Alliantie owns most of the houses in the area

where the Face Your World Project took place In 2001 the report

Richting Parkstad 2015 (Direction Park City 2015) was published

based on pilot projects and research conducted in the boroughs by

the wards and the housing corporations

Every five years the document Richting Parkstad 2015 is

evaluated and when necessary updated In 2006 the first official

evaluation took place This resulted in three reports a discussion

document the report of the discussion and a new proposal An

important change after the 2006 evaluation was the decision

to invest more money in the social aspects of the renewal

Before 2006 the focus was mainly on economical and physical

Ketelaar

ldquoGeschiedenis rdquo

Gemeente

Amsterdam ldquoRichting rdquo

Gemeente Amsterdam

ldquoHerziening rdquo

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

renewal For example the 2001 version of Richting Parkstad 2015

aimed at attracting people from other cities and the center of

Amsterdam to the western boroughs so that the population

would diversify The ward and housing corporations hoped that

building more expensive and attractive apartments in Slotervaart

would attract higher income families as well In other words

they aimed for the gentrification of Slotervaart

However after five years and several pilot projects it

became clear that these did not have the desired result of gentri-

fication The focus of the revised 2006 report was on the people

already living in these boroughs on making their neighborhoods

a better place and offering them better living conditions The new

report stressed that the social economic and physical renovation

of these neighborhoods had to go hand in hand to achieve these

goals The social is understood by the ward as consisting of

schools local initiatives religious facilities and support for the

inhabitants The economic aspect deals with employment oppor-

tunities businesses and shops The physical aspect relates to

the renovation of living spaces the demolition of old buildings

the construction of new buildings and the reorganization of

streets and green areas The housing corporations are responsible

for organizing and facilitating public participation They consult

the neighborhood residents not only on their wishes for the neigh-

borhood as a whole but also on their wishes and desires for their

new homes By engaging the public in processes of decision-

making and design the housing corporations hope to establish a

more positive dynamic between the citizens of Slotervaart and

their neighborhood between the social and the material fabric

of this borough

The challenge of urban renewal in the garden cities is very

complex mainly due to re-housing problems and there is a

general sense of insecurity and confusion among residents

concerning the future of their homes and neighborhood This is

partly caused by the fact that the plans for the renewal of Sloter-

vaart have been adapted and changed numerous times and respon-

sibilities have been redistributed between the ward and housing

corporations The renewal of the garden cities is still in full

process and is far from finished As Bollens points out in his

article in this issue ldquourban rigidityrdquo impedes ldquomaterial changerdquo

The concept of the obdurate city that resists change and is there-

fore hard to unbuild has also been used by Hommels in Unbuild-

ing Cities Slotervaart fits Hommelsrsquo description of ldquodisputedrdquo and

ldquocontestedrdquo areas that are ldquosubjected to lsquounbuilding activitiesrsquordquo

Gemeente

Amsterdam ldquoRichting rdquo

Gemeente Amsterdam

ldquoHerziening rdquo

Gemeente Amsterdam

ldquoHerziening rdquo

de Jager

Hommels

152 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

In urban renewal processes the stakes might be ldquoso high that years

of planning debate and controversy may result in no changes at

allrdquo In line with Hommelsrsquo concept of unbuilding are the terms

ldquoun-designrdquo and ldquoreverse engineeringrdquo used by Brand in this

issue While Hommelsrsquo concept refers mainly to technological

and bureaucratic hindrances in relation to urban renewal efforts

Brandrsquos concepts are more politically laden and relate to attempts

at understanding original design intentions

Because of the complex situation in Slotervaart and the fact

that the renewal process takes place over such a long period of

time the ward tries to inform the public as thoroughly as possible

with special websites publications and newspapers that detail

what is going on where when and why There are a lot of hearings

and meetings to which the public is invited to reflect on the urban

renewal plans ask questions and if needed object to certain plans

At the time of writing there are three different calls for public

participation on the Slotervaart website A 2006 report by the

city of Amsterdam showed that younger people and immigrants

are less inclined to attend such meetings and hearings and

partake in public participation exercises Face Your World was

aimed at engaging exactly those two groups

Public Participation in Urban Planning

There are different reasons officials employ public participation in

urban renewal processes to build trust and gain acceptance for

urban interventions to generate ideas and to find solutions

Public participation became an important aspect of urban planning

during the 1960s (which is not to say that since then participation

has always been exercised) A key text from the 1960s on public

participation in urban planning is ldquoA Ladder of Citizen Partici-

pationrdquo by Sherry Arnstein Arnstein distinguishes between eight

different forms or degrees of public participation from manipu-

lation the lowest rung on the ladder to citizen control the

highest rung She states ldquoThere is a critical difference between

going through the empty ritual of participation and having the

real power needed to affect the outcome of the processrdquo Jim

Burns in another key work on public participation in urban

planning outlines a process of user involvement that goes from

awareness to perception to decision-making and finally to

implementation or action Concerning the first step in the

process awareness Burns writes that this can come about in

Hommels

ldquoSlotervaatrdquo

Lindeman et al

Arnstein

Arnstein

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

either a negative way (decisions have already been made) or

positive way (inhabitants are informed and involved) Positive

awareness will lead according to Burns to ldquoperception and under-

standingrdquo Although Burns sees a direct movement from percep-

tion to decision-making and ultimately implementation it is

very difficult in participation trajectories to actually cover these

last two steps of decision-making and implementation During

participation processes numerous issues can frustrate these final

two steps ranging from citizens losing interest in a given situation

to a new political coalition that decides to do things differently

from running out of money to see the process to the end to the

disapproval of decisions by those higher up

Besides different levels at which the public can be engaged in

urban planningmdash from simply being informed about a project to

being allowed to co-create a projectmdashthere are of course many

different forms of public participation Throughout the decades

that citizen participation has been placed on the agendas of plan-

ners architects and politicians it has been practiced in various

ways from surveys to hearings from workshops to games The

use of computer game-based tools for public participation

became more common from the mid-1990s onwards because the

possibilities for designing realistic 3-D environments increased

More generally such tools commonly referred to as serious

games have found their way into many professional fields and

are widely used and experimented with as training and educational

devices Serious games strive to combine the entertainment value

and technological possibilities of computer games with an

educational andor political agenda

Kheir Al-Kodmany professor in urban design and physical

planning at the University of Illinois identifies some important

advantages and disadvantages of computer-based public partici-

pation Advantages of digital tools are according to Al-Kodmany

the possibility of representing contextual data the illustration of

abstract concepts the display of information selectively and the

ability to navigate geographical scale He has concerns however

about the confusing relationship between realistic computer-

generated images and reality participantsrsquo limited options for

social interaction when computer-based tools are used and the

fact that participants are mostly not granted access to the design

of the design tool itself Participation processes might be intended

to open up the black-box nature of policy making or urban renewal

but the tools via which the participants are expected to participate

remain black boxes

Burns

Burns

Al-Kodmany

Al-Kodmany

154 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Measuring the effectiveness of participation efforts is a diffi-

cult task as risk analysts Gene Rowe and Lynn Frewer state in

ldquoEvaluating Public-Participation Exercisesrdquo The authors state

that the question ldquohow we can be sure that lsquoparticipationrsquo results

in any improvementrdquo has not yet been answered Rowe and

Frewer describe an agenda of sequential steps to evaluate the effec-

tiveness of public participation first of all effectiveness needs to be

defined (eg does the project aim for process or outcome effective-

ness) this definition of effectiveness needs to be operationalized

(for example through participant interviews and questionnaires)

so that the extent to which the effectiveness is achieved can be

measured and finally the evaluation itself needs to be actually

conducted and the results interpreted (keeping in mind the form

of participation evaluated the context and the interplay between

the form and the context of participation)

Notwithstanding the question what the concrete process or

outcome effectiveness is of any public participation project the

promise of democratization or the democratic potential of public

participation are generally at the heart of these projects

However certain participatory tools are therapeutic rather than

empowering as Arnstein pointed out Other tools might uninten-

tionally create a divide between those with access to the tool

and those without or the tool itself might be ingrained with

specific biases or design scripts that exclude certain users from

taking part in the participatory project And there are of course

always people who cannot or will not participate so-called non-

users or non-participants Hans Harbers argues for example in

ldquoPolitics of Technologyrdquo that not everyone wants to participate

in direct democracy exercises In a representational democracy

people have voted for professional representatives and should

thus be exempted from having to spend time and energy on famil-

iarizing themselves with the issue at stake Harbers points out that

consulting the public is not necessarily a sign of democracy it

might just as well be a sign of political incompetence Whatever

the case non-usersmdasheither by choice or by exclusionmdashshould

be taken seriously in public participation efforts Sally Wyatt

distinguishes between four different non-users the excluded and

expelled non-users are ldquohave notsrdquo while the resisters and rejec-

ters are ldquowant notsrdquo Wyatt has pointed out how non-users of

technological artifacts are generally framed in policy discussions

as deprived of something or subject to inequality and therefore

in need of remedies that will promote non-users to the same

status as users

Rowe and Frewer

Rowe and Frewer

Rowe and Frewer

Harbers

Harbers

Harbers

Wyatt

Wyatt

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Face Your World

Slotervaart has seen many different forms of public participation

during the years that the urban renewal of this area has been

under way One of the problems of these public participation pro-

jects is that most of the time only the same white elderly people

participate Hanneke Engelsman area developer for the housing

corporation De Alliantie had therefore been looking for new

ways to organize public participation Nevertheless securing the

commission to undertake the Face Your World participation

project took considerable time and effort according to Jeanne

Van Heeswijk the developer of the first version of Face Your

World because the ward council had some reservations The

ward worried that Face Your World would end in the design of a

park that they would not be able to finance3 Designing a park

with neighborhood residents that would be too expensive to

realize would damage the image of the ward Neighborhood

residents already had the feeling that the ward does not take

their citizen participation seriously Organizing a large partici-

pation process that would result in a park design that the ward

could not afford would only further these feelings and confirm

the citizensrsquo skepticism about their role in the urban renewal

process In the end the parties came to an agreement that Van

Heeswijk could start with the project

Face Your World was a mixed-media participation process

with the Interactor a photorealistic 3-D design software appli-

cation at its core There were three groups of participants children

enrolled in Face Your World as part of their school curriculum

neighborhood children who participated on an individual basis and

adult participants There were roughly two means of participation

computer-based (through the Interactor) and non-computer-based

(for example through excursions workshops and surveys) The

different forms of participation were used for different reasons

The Interactor created for children aged 8 to 12 was used to

design the park Surveys were used to form an idea of what the

neighborhood residents needed wished for and hoped for in

relation to the park Public meetings and public hearings were

either used to gather more data on the local wishes for the park

to educate people on what to expect from a park or to present

ideas and designs for the park that people could then comment on

The central location for all activities was an old sporting

hallmdashrenamed Stedelijk Lab (urban lab)mdashthat was destined

for demolition and stood on the very grounds where the park

Engelsman

van Heeswijk 2007

3The specified budget for the park

remains undisclosed until the park

is realized

156 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

would be developed The Lab was open to the public on Tuesday

Wednesday and Thursday afternoons During these public hours

neighborhood residents were free to walk in and make suggestions

for the park (these were all noted down in a logbook) and children

could come in and join in the design process The popularity of

the Lab increased immensely among neighborhood children

during the Face Your World project Over the 26 weeks of the

Face Your World process hundreds of people including chil-

dren visited the Lab during public hours The Lab was further

used on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings by the children

enrolled in Face Your World as part of their school curriculum

The progress made on the design of the park was presented

halfway through the process during a public event that attracted

600 visitors The presentation of the final design attracted 1000

visitors

The Interactor software offered the participants a game-like

environment that guided them through different stages of a

design process exploring sketching discussing and designing

Throughout the process of designing with the Interactor the parti-

cipating children were guided by a group of experts in the fields of

urban planning design and landscape architecture

During the first phase of the Interactor children entered their

digitalized neighborhood and started exploring the controls of the

game They were represented in the game by a standard onscreen

character A picture of the playerrsquos face could be mounted on this

standard onscreen character When the participants had familiar-

ized themselves with the workings of the Interactor they were

asked to take an in-game screenshot of the area they would like

to work on

During the sketching phase this screenshot served as the

canvas on which the children could individually experiment

explore their ideas and try out different design solutions During

Face Your World Slotervaart 1216 sketches were made Children

could also add objects from the library to their sketchs The image

library of the game contained more than 400 digital pictures

divided into the categories of nature people animals buildings

vehicles street furniture logos grounds and miscellaneous

Importantly children could also add their own elements to this

library in the form of pictures digitally designed objects or altera-

tions of existing objects The children added 1207 objects to the

standard library This option enabled children to a certain

extent to contribute to the design script of the Interactor They

could appropriate the standard elements in the library or add

van Heeswijk et al

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

new elements to the image library that they needed for their

design This option correlated to the concern Al-Kodmany raised

concerning the black-box nature of digital participation tools

Although the design scripts of the Interactor were not open for

redesign or modification by the participants the option to add

elements to the library allowed participants to co-design to a

certain extent the design tool with which they were expected to

create a new neighborhood park

In the third phase of the game children would discuss each

otherrsquos sketches vote for the best sketch and write down why

they had voted for that particular sketch In the final stage children

entered the multi-player mode and had to start designing the park

together This final designing phase was added to foster cooperation

among the children they had to agree on how to design the park and

work together in order to be able to realize their ideas A chat func-

tion was embedded in the game to facilitate the cooperation and

communication between the participants In reality however chil-

dren would rather communicate verbally about what was going on

in the game and use the chat function for nonsense or even verbal

abuse (until the team put an end to this)

I asked two participants of Face Your World Slotervaart how

they perceived the use of the computer game in the participation

process A girl named Khadya who was 12 years old at the time

she participated told me she thought that using the Interactor

did not decide the design of the park but that it did make it

easier to see what you were doing and what you were creating

According to Hicham a 10 year old boy the Interactor was an

essential addition to the design process because it allowed the

players to shape their ideas Playing with the game also generated

new ideas because abstract ideas would take a concrete shape

Hicham pointed out ldquoWhen someone would put for example a

McDonaldrsquos in the game then I would think lsquoa terrace in front

of the McDonaldrsquos restaurant would be nice so that people can

sit outside while eatingrsquordquo According to him the computer made

things easy you could simply click on an object and place it in

the game world (See Figure 4)

What these two participants valued about working with the

Interactor is in line with the advantages outlined by Al-

Kodmany the Interactor makes abstract concepts related to

designing a public park ldquotangiblerdquo and visible players can

explore alternatives quickly and without lasting consequences

and the digital library can be searched and used easily for design

elements

van Heeswijk

Khadya

Hicham

Hicham

158 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Both groups of children (neighborhood children and the chil-

dren enrolled as part of their school curriculum) participated

mainly through the use of the Interactor This was complemented

with lessons excursions and real-life drawing and modeling The

adults participated almost exclusively through workshops meet-

ings and surveys Over the course of the seven months when

Face Your World Slotervaart took place 49 different eventsmdash

workshops and meetings mainlymdashwere organized These 49

events except for one workshop for teenage girls were targeted

at adults The meetings and workshops each addressed a specific

group of stakeholders elderly neighborhood residents Turkish

and Moroccan women or teenage girls During these events an

illustrator visualized the ideas and wishes of the neighborhood

residents in order to guide the discussions and make their

suggestions and ideas more ldquotangiblerdquo In order to engage both

Turkish and Moroccan women individual meetings and workshops

FIGURE 4A Girl Working with the Interactor

Note On top of the workstation we see a drawing the girl made of a large tree with a

little house inside the tree On the screen we see the girl digitally redrawing her

design for the tree house

Source van Heeswijk

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Both groups of children (neighborhood children and the chil-

dren enrolled as part of their school curriculum) participated

mainly through the use of the Interactor This was complemented

with lessons excursions and real-life drawing and modeling The

adults participated almost exclusively through workshops meet-

ings and surveys Over the course of the seven months when

Face Your World Slotervaart took place 49 different eventsmdash

workshops and meetings mainlymdashwere organized These 49

events except for one workshop for teenage girls were targeted

at adults The meetings and workshops each addressed a specific

group of stakeholders elderly neighborhood residents Turkish

and Moroccan women or teenage girls During these events an

illustrator visualized the ideas and wishes of the neighborhood

residents in order to guide the discussions and make their

suggestions and ideas more ldquotangiblerdquo In order to engage both

Turkish and Moroccan women individual meetings and workshops

FIGURE 4A Girl Working with the Interactor

Note On top of the workstation we see a drawing the girl made of a large tree with a

little house inside the tree On the screen we see the girl digitally redrawing her

design for the tree house

Source van Heeswijk

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

needed to be organized because they would not attend activities

together with men Some meetings or workshops would start with

a two-hour women-only session after which men were welcome

as well A 75-year-old neighborhood resident Gerard who has

been living in Slotervaart since the 1960s and who was very

active during hearings and meetings concerning the renewal of his

neighborhood said that this measure offended some men who felt

discriminated against Gerard explained that many senior white

neighborhood residents felt left out from the participation process

in general because they thought it was targeted mainly at immigrant

neighborhood residents

Besides these issues related to the participation process and

the inclusion of all affected people in this process there were

some struggles with the ward that arose from the pre-set conditions

for the park that the ward had assembled Both public space

designer Joris Broekhuizen and communications advisor Leta

Hoeve from the Slotervaart ward said that these pre-set conditions

were a point of conflict between the ward and van Heeswijk The

list with pre-set conditions contained 27 criteria for the park that

ranged from the number of times the results had to be shown to

a team of supervisors (minimally twice) to the preservation of

old trees in the park from common-sense elements for a park

such as lights and dustbins to specific square meters for certain

activities (eg 2945 square meters for the playground) The

final design of the park shows that not all of these pre-set con-

ditions were met (See Figure 5)

Some of these pre-set conditions addressed the social aspect

of the participation process for instance the fact that the park had

to be designed together with school children and neighborhood

residents and the fact that the design had to include different

ethnic groups from Slotervaart However most of the pre-set con-

ditions related to the material design and outlay of the park The

list stipulated for example the boundaries of the park and the

location of the five entrances to the park (in the four corners and

bordering the playground of the new school that would be built

next to the park) The locations of the five entrances were

changed instead of an entrance in every corner there are now

entrances in the middle of the four sides of the park Otherwise

the ellipses on which the future users of the park would be able

to jog or walk would have had to have been interrupted Also

the ward made it clear that the park would need to be surrounded

by a fence a low wall or bushes Both adults and children

partaking in the design of the park requested such a fence as

Gerard

Gerard

Broekhuizen

Hoeve

160 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

well A fence would keep toddlers and balls inside the park and

undesirables outside The children went even further Hicham

told me and asked for a caretaker to be stationed in a little

house inside the park The caretaker would keep an eye on the

park and store playthings inside the little house that children

might borrow from him The children came up with a design for

the caretakerrsquos house but it was because of budgetary restrictions

not included in the final design Closely related to the request for a

fence was the demand that the park should be socially safe lots of

light and no dark corners or unclear areas Lights will be placed

along the elliptical paths in the park

The fence is an object that illustrates clearly what Bollens in

this issue calls the ldquomultiple and contested meanings of physical

FIGURE 5Park Design Resulting from the

Face Your World Planning Process

Note The park is divided into different areas for children of different ages In the

area for children aged between 0ndash6 years old there will be a sandbox and some play-

ground tools The area for the 6ndash12-year-old children will also consist of playground

tools The middle area of the park contains a multi-functional sports field and a

separate area for teenage girls Dennis Kaspori the architect on the Face Your

World team made the final drawing of the park but he did not alter or translate

the design made by the children with the Interactor

Source van Heeswijk

van Heeswijk

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

objectsrdquo For certain users the fence has favorable design scripts

embedded in it that relate to safety inclusion of ball and children

and exclusion of unwanted characters For the people who are

meant to be kept out of the park by the fence these scripts are

needless to say undesired As the case studies in this issue illus-

trate the actual effects of an urban intervention do not always

overlap with the intended ones Brand notes that urban interven-

tions ldquousually have more than just the intended effectrdquo Stienen

quotes Paul Rabinow to point out that ldquoreality never totally imi-

tates an urbanistic idealrdquo Bollens writes that urban interventions

ldquodo not necessarily lead to desired outcomesrdquo because the built

environment is not a passive platform but rather an ldquoactive at

times contrary agentrdquo So the fence might lead to outsmarting

responses by those who experience it as an undesired urban

intervention Because the park has not yet been constructed it is

so far unknown what sort of behavior and reactions the fence or

the whole park for that matter will trigger

Face Your World had both implicit and explicit goals Expli-

citly it was aimed at the design of a new neighborhood park with

young people and immigrants that would be supported by the eth-

nically diverse inhabitants of Slotervaart This goal is in line with

Brandrsquos conclusion in this issue that ldquoscripts should only be built

into artifacts if they have the approval of all affected groupsrdquo The

park would have to be a neutral and friendly meeting place for this

troubled neighborhood The final design of the park covers 13500

square meters and is designed to appeal to different projected

users There is a sports field that can be used for football basket-

ball theater plays and markets a play area for little children with

a slide and swings a secluded area for teenage girls and benches

for elderly people or parents accompanying their children The

ultimate design tries to cater to as many wishes of the parkrsquos

future users as possible and configure these wishes into the

design of the park This means that in terms of Rowe and

Frewer both process and outcome effectiveness were intended

The process had to involve neighborhood groups who were other-

wise difficult to engage4 and the ultimate design of the park had to

be supported by the different age and ethnic groups in the neigh-

borhood There are two sides to the outcome effectiveness of

Face Your World the design of the park and the actual construc-

tion of the park The construction of the park should have been fin-

ished in 2007 but has been postponed until 2010 Harry Wien

project leader at the Slotervaart ward said the delay occurred

because a school from the region was looking for housing and

Bollens

Bollens

4In this sense Face Your World

could be considered in Wyattrsquos

terms an attempt at promoting or

upgrading non-users to users

162 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

they are now housed in the school building that will have to be

demolished in order to build the park For the neighborhood

children and citizens who contributed to the design of the park

the gap between participation and realization between the

process and the outcome is very long So the wardrsquos fear that

this intensive participation project would widen instead of close

the gap between ward and citizens was partly realized although

in a different way than the ward had foreseen The postponed

realization of the park illustrates the obduracy of cities as theorized

by Hommels

Implicitly and more generally municipalities policy

makers and urban planners hoped to establish a more positive

relationship between the built environment and its residents

through this participation project between the material and the

social fabric of Slotervaart A participation project like Face

Your World activates and taps into the relationship of mutual

shaping and co-construction between the material and the social

and aims to steer and maneuver this relationship into a more

constructive direction It is in this sense a form of social design

or social engineering in which one aims at or claims to be able

to change the social environment through interventions into the

built environment By designing scripts for the park together

with future users one hoped to create an urban intervention that

would be embraced by the neighborhood Like the case studies

in Bollensrsquo article in this issue Face Your World could be

considered an intervention that shapes ldquothe built environment in

ways that symbolize and express political goals pertaining to

openness and inclusivenessrdquo The participation project and the

park design were means to push a certain political agenda and to

overcome tensions and conflict in Slotervaart

Conclusion

This article started with the example of the mosque building toy to

illustrate the interconnection between the material and the social

Toys can be considered mediators mirrors and promoters of

cultural and urban changes Architectural toys bring changing

urban configurations inside the private home and the private

rooms of children Face Your World functions in the very same

way as these toys it mediates between the participants and the

urban renewal of their neighborhood it mirrors the changing land-

scape (both material and cultural) of Slotervaart and it aims at

Wien

Bollens

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

promoting a positive change within the relationship between these

two aspects of Slotervaart By making both children and adults

part of the design of a new neighborhood park the participants

became involved in the design of their built environment and

the hope was that this involvement would lead to a more positive

relationship between the inhabitants of Slotervaart and their

surroundings

However the recent data on safety and social quality in Slo-

tervaart do not hint at a more positive relationship between the

social and the material A recent news item on the authoritative

Dutch security industry website wwwsecurity-onlinenl reported

that the Slotervaart ward had asked Amsterdam mayor Job

Cohen for permission to keep the security cameras on five

squares in Slotervaart including the Abraham Staalman square

next to the location of the future park The website states that

neighborhood residents shop owners and the police support this

request because the cameras have since their installation in

2008 reduced the number of thefts and robbery and the trouble

created by the aforementioned loitering teenagers Another

measure that was recently taken involves the installation for a

period of three months of a so-called Mosquito device on the

Piet Mondriaan square in Slotervaart The Mosquito makes a

high sound that can only be heard by people under the age of

25 In fact the noise is so irritating that it chases teenagers away

from their regular hangouts The device is activated between

8 PM and 5 AM in order not to disturb younger children in the vicinity

of the device The sound cannot be heard indoors and does not

produce hearing damage These initiatives stand in shrill contrast

to the Face Your World participation project that was aimed at

designing urban scripts together with all affected parties rather

than imposing unwanted scripts on certain users in order to change

the ways in which they can use and appropriate urban spaces

There are two main reasons why a more positive relationship

between the social and the material has so far not been estab-

lished in Slotervaart First the discrepancy between the ways in

which teenagers and children were engaged in the public partici-

pation project Face Your World and the current measures that

curtail their urban freedom and independence are astounding

Some of the young people living in Slotervaart might have been

part of a participation project that asked for their opinion that

allowed them to co-design scripts for their neighborhood and

who are now a mere three years later followed by security

cameras and chased away by piercing noise The second reason

SecurityOnline

Stadsdeel

Slotervaart

164 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

well A fence would keep toddlers and balls inside the park and

undesirables outside The children went even further Hicham

told me and asked for a caretaker to be stationed in a little

house inside the park The caretaker would keep an eye on the

park and store playthings inside the little house that children

might borrow from him The children came up with a design for

the caretakerrsquos house but it was because of budgetary restrictions

not included in the final design Closely related to the request for a

fence was the demand that the park should be socially safe lots of

light and no dark corners or unclear areas Lights will be placed

along the elliptical paths in the park

The fence is an object that illustrates clearly what Bollens in

this issue calls the ldquomultiple and contested meanings of physical

FIGURE 5Park Design Resulting from the

Face Your World Planning Process

Note The park is divided into different areas for children of different ages In the

area for children aged between 0ndash6 years old there will be a sandbox and some play-

ground tools The area for the 6ndash12-year-old children will also consist of playground

tools The middle area of the park contains a multi-functional sports field and a

separate area for teenage girls Dennis Kaspori the architect on the Face Your

World team made the final drawing of the park but he did not alter or translate

the design made by the children with the Interactor

Source van Heeswijk

van Heeswijk

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

objectsrdquo For certain users the fence has favorable design scripts

embedded in it that relate to safety inclusion of ball and children

and exclusion of unwanted characters For the people who are

meant to be kept out of the park by the fence these scripts are

needless to say undesired As the case studies in this issue illus-

trate the actual effects of an urban intervention do not always

overlap with the intended ones Brand notes that urban interven-

tions ldquousually have more than just the intended effectrdquo Stienen

quotes Paul Rabinow to point out that ldquoreality never totally imi-

tates an urbanistic idealrdquo Bollens writes that urban interventions

ldquodo not necessarily lead to desired outcomesrdquo because the built

environment is not a passive platform but rather an ldquoactive at

times contrary agentrdquo So the fence might lead to outsmarting

responses by those who experience it as an undesired urban

intervention Because the park has not yet been constructed it is

so far unknown what sort of behavior and reactions the fence or

the whole park for that matter will trigger

Face Your World had both implicit and explicit goals Expli-

citly it was aimed at the design of a new neighborhood park with

young people and immigrants that would be supported by the eth-

nically diverse inhabitants of Slotervaart This goal is in line with

Brandrsquos conclusion in this issue that ldquoscripts should only be built

into artifacts if they have the approval of all affected groupsrdquo The

park would have to be a neutral and friendly meeting place for this

troubled neighborhood The final design of the park covers 13500

square meters and is designed to appeal to different projected

users There is a sports field that can be used for football basket-

ball theater plays and markets a play area for little children with

a slide and swings a secluded area for teenage girls and benches

for elderly people or parents accompanying their children The

ultimate design tries to cater to as many wishes of the parkrsquos

future users as possible and configure these wishes into the

design of the park This means that in terms of Rowe and

Frewer both process and outcome effectiveness were intended

The process had to involve neighborhood groups who were other-

wise difficult to engage4 and the ultimate design of the park had to

be supported by the different age and ethnic groups in the neigh-

borhood There are two sides to the outcome effectiveness of

Face Your World the design of the park and the actual construc-

tion of the park The construction of the park should have been fin-

ished in 2007 but has been postponed until 2010 Harry Wien

project leader at the Slotervaart ward said the delay occurred

because a school from the region was looking for housing and

Bollens

Bollens

4In this sense Face Your World

could be considered in Wyattrsquos

terms an attempt at promoting or

upgrading non-users to users

162 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

they are now housed in the school building that will have to be

demolished in order to build the park For the neighborhood

children and citizens who contributed to the design of the park

the gap between participation and realization between the

process and the outcome is very long So the wardrsquos fear that

this intensive participation project would widen instead of close

the gap between ward and citizens was partly realized although

in a different way than the ward had foreseen The postponed

realization of the park illustrates the obduracy of cities as theorized

by Hommels

Implicitly and more generally municipalities policy

makers and urban planners hoped to establish a more positive

relationship between the built environment and its residents

through this participation project between the material and the

social fabric of Slotervaart A participation project like Face

Your World activates and taps into the relationship of mutual

shaping and co-construction between the material and the social

and aims to steer and maneuver this relationship into a more

constructive direction It is in this sense a form of social design

or social engineering in which one aims at or claims to be able

to change the social environment through interventions into the

built environment By designing scripts for the park together

with future users one hoped to create an urban intervention that

would be embraced by the neighborhood Like the case studies

in Bollensrsquo article in this issue Face Your World could be

considered an intervention that shapes ldquothe built environment in

ways that symbolize and express political goals pertaining to

openness and inclusivenessrdquo The participation project and the

park design were means to push a certain political agenda and to

overcome tensions and conflict in Slotervaart

Conclusion

This article started with the example of the mosque building toy to

illustrate the interconnection between the material and the social

Toys can be considered mediators mirrors and promoters of

cultural and urban changes Architectural toys bring changing

urban configurations inside the private home and the private

rooms of children Face Your World functions in the very same

way as these toys it mediates between the participants and the

urban renewal of their neighborhood it mirrors the changing land-

scape (both material and cultural) of Slotervaart and it aims at

Wien

Bollens

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

promoting a positive change within the relationship between these

two aspects of Slotervaart By making both children and adults

part of the design of a new neighborhood park the participants

became involved in the design of their built environment and

the hope was that this involvement would lead to a more positive

relationship between the inhabitants of Slotervaart and their

surroundings

However the recent data on safety and social quality in Slo-

tervaart do not hint at a more positive relationship between the

social and the material A recent news item on the authoritative

Dutch security industry website wwwsecurity-onlinenl reported

that the Slotervaart ward had asked Amsterdam mayor Job

Cohen for permission to keep the security cameras on five

squares in Slotervaart including the Abraham Staalman square

next to the location of the future park The website states that

neighborhood residents shop owners and the police support this

request because the cameras have since their installation in

2008 reduced the number of thefts and robbery and the trouble

created by the aforementioned loitering teenagers Another

measure that was recently taken involves the installation for a

period of three months of a so-called Mosquito device on the

Piet Mondriaan square in Slotervaart The Mosquito makes a

high sound that can only be heard by people under the age of

25 In fact the noise is so irritating that it chases teenagers away

from their regular hangouts The device is activated between

8 PM and 5 AM in order not to disturb younger children in the vicinity

of the device The sound cannot be heard indoors and does not

produce hearing damage These initiatives stand in shrill contrast

to the Face Your World participation project that was aimed at

designing urban scripts together with all affected parties rather

than imposing unwanted scripts on certain users in order to change

the ways in which they can use and appropriate urban spaces

There are two main reasons why a more positive relationship

between the social and the material has so far not been estab-

lished in Slotervaart First the discrepancy between the ways in

which teenagers and children were engaged in the public partici-

pation project Face Your World and the current measures that

curtail their urban freedom and independence are astounding

Some of the young people living in Slotervaart might have been

part of a participation project that asked for their opinion that

allowed them to co-design scripts for their neighborhood and

who are now a mere three years later followed by security

cameras and chased away by piercing noise The second reason

SecurityOnline

Stadsdeel

Slotervaart

164 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

objectsrdquo For certain users the fence has favorable design scripts

embedded in it that relate to safety inclusion of ball and children

and exclusion of unwanted characters For the people who are

meant to be kept out of the park by the fence these scripts are

needless to say undesired As the case studies in this issue illus-

trate the actual effects of an urban intervention do not always

overlap with the intended ones Brand notes that urban interven-

tions ldquousually have more than just the intended effectrdquo Stienen

quotes Paul Rabinow to point out that ldquoreality never totally imi-

tates an urbanistic idealrdquo Bollens writes that urban interventions

ldquodo not necessarily lead to desired outcomesrdquo because the built

environment is not a passive platform but rather an ldquoactive at

times contrary agentrdquo So the fence might lead to outsmarting

responses by those who experience it as an undesired urban

intervention Because the park has not yet been constructed it is

so far unknown what sort of behavior and reactions the fence or

the whole park for that matter will trigger

Face Your World had both implicit and explicit goals Expli-

citly it was aimed at the design of a new neighborhood park with

young people and immigrants that would be supported by the eth-

nically diverse inhabitants of Slotervaart This goal is in line with

Brandrsquos conclusion in this issue that ldquoscripts should only be built

into artifacts if they have the approval of all affected groupsrdquo The

park would have to be a neutral and friendly meeting place for this

troubled neighborhood The final design of the park covers 13500

square meters and is designed to appeal to different projected

users There is a sports field that can be used for football basket-

ball theater plays and markets a play area for little children with

a slide and swings a secluded area for teenage girls and benches

for elderly people or parents accompanying their children The

ultimate design tries to cater to as many wishes of the parkrsquos

future users as possible and configure these wishes into the

design of the park This means that in terms of Rowe and

Frewer both process and outcome effectiveness were intended

The process had to involve neighborhood groups who were other-

wise difficult to engage4 and the ultimate design of the park had to

be supported by the different age and ethnic groups in the neigh-

borhood There are two sides to the outcome effectiveness of

Face Your World the design of the park and the actual construc-

tion of the park The construction of the park should have been fin-

ished in 2007 but has been postponed until 2010 Harry Wien

project leader at the Slotervaart ward said the delay occurred

because a school from the region was looking for housing and

Bollens

Bollens

4In this sense Face Your World

could be considered in Wyattrsquos

terms an attempt at promoting or

upgrading non-users to users

162 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

they are now housed in the school building that will have to be

demolished in order to build the park For the neighborhood

children and citizens who contributed to the design of the park

the gap between participation and realization between the

process and the outcome is very long So the wardrsquos fear that

this intensive participation project would widen instead of close

the gap between ward and citizens was partly realized although

in a different way than the ward had foreseen The postponed

realization of the park illustrates the obduracy of cities as theorized

by Hommels

Implicitly and more generally municipalities policy

makers and urban planners hoped to establish a more positive

relationship between the built environment and its residents

through this participation project between the material and the

social fabric of Slotervaart A participation project like Face

Your World activates and taps into the relationship of mutual

shaping and co-construction between the material and the social

and aims to steer and maneuver this relationship into a more

constructive direction It is in this sense a form of social design

or social engineering in which one aims at or claims to be able

to change the social environment through interventions into the

built environment By designing scripts for the park together

with future users one hoped to create an urban intervention that

would be embraced by the neighborhood Like the case studies

in Bollensrsquo article in this issue Face Your World could be

considered an intervention that shapes ldquothe built environment in

ways that symbolize and express political goals pertaining to

openness and inclusivenessrdquo The participation project and the

park design were means to push a certain political agenda and to

overcome tensions and conflict in Slotervaart

Conclusion

This article started with the example of the mosque building toy to

illustrate the interconnection between the material and the social

Toys can be considered mediators mirrors and promoters of

cultural and urban changes Architectural toys bring changing

urban configurations inside the private home and the private

rooms of children Face Your World functions in the very same

way as these toys it mediates between the participants and the

urban renewal of their neighborhood it mirrors the changing land-

scape (both material and cultural) of Slotervaart and it aims at

Wien

Bollens

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

promoting a positive change within the relationship between these

two aspects of Slotervaart By making both children and adults

part of the design of a new neighborhood park the participants

became involved in the design of their built environment and

the hope was that this involvement would lead to a more positive

relationship between the inhabitants of Slotervaart and their

surroundings

However the recent data on safety and social quality in Slo-

tervaart do not hint at a more positive relationship between the

social and the material A recent news item on the authoritative

Dutch security industry website wwwsecurity-onlinenl reported

that the Slotervaart ward had asked Amsterdam mayor Job

Cohen for permission to keep the security cameras on five

squares in Slotervaart including the Abraham Staalman square

next to the location of the future park The website states that

neighborhood residents shop owners and the police support this

request because the cameras have since their installation in

2008 reduced the number of thefts and robbery and the trouble

created by the aforementioned loitering teenagers Another

measure that was recently taken involves the installation for a

period of three months of a so-called Mosquito device on the

Piet Mondriaan square in Slotervaart The Mosquito makes a

high sound that can only be heard by people under the age of

25 In fact the noise is so irritating that it chases teenagers away

from their regular hangouts The device is activated between

8 PM and 5 AM in order not to disturb younger children in the vicinity

of the device The sound cannot be heard indoors and does not

produce hearing damage These initiatives stand in shrill contrast

to the Face Your World participation project that was aimed at

designing urban scripts together with all affected parties rather

than imposing unwanted scripts on certain users in order to change

the ways in which they can use and appropriate urban spaces

There are two main reasons why a more positive relationship

between the social and the material has so far not been estab-

lished in Slotervaart First the discrepancy between the ways in

which teenagers and children were engaged in the public partici-

pation project Face Your World and the current measures that

curtail their urban freedom and independence are astounding

Some of the young people living in Slotervaart might have been

part of a participation project that asked for their opinion that

allowed them to co-design scripts for their neighborhood and

who are now a mere three years later followed by security

cameras and chased away by piercing noise The second reason

SecurityOnline

Stadsdeel

Slotervaart

164 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

they are now housed in the school building that will have to be

demolished in order to build the park For the neighborhood

children and citizens who contributed to the design of the park

the gap between participation and realization between the

process and the outcome is very long So the wardrsquos fear that

this intensive participation project would widen instead of close

the gap between ward and citizens was partly realized although

in a different way than the ward had foreseen The postponed

realization of the park illustrates the obduracy of cities as theorized

by Hommels

Implicitly and more generally municipalities policy

makers and urban planners hoped to establish a more positive

relationship between the built environment and its residents

through this participation project between the material and the

social fabric of Slotervaart A participation project like Face

Your World activates and taps into the relationship of mutual

shaping and co-construction between the material and the social

and aims to steer and maneuver this relationship into a more

constructive direction It is in this sense a form of social design

or social engineering in which one aims at or claims to be able

to change the social environment through interventions into the

built environment By designing scripts for the park together

with future users one hoped to create an urban intervention that

would be embraced by the neighborhood Like the case studies

in Bollensrsquo article in this issue Face Your World could be

considered an intervention that shapes ldquothe built environment in

ways that symbolize and express political goals pertaining to

openness and inclusivenessrdquo The participation project and the

park design were means to push a certain political agenda and to

overcome tensions and conflict in Slotervaart

Conclusion

This article started with the example of the mosque building toy to

illustrate the interconnection between the material and the social

Toys can be considered mediators mirrors and promoters of

cultural and urban changes Architectural toys bring changing

urban configurations inside the private home and the private

rooms of children Face Your World functions in the very same

way as these toys it mediates between the participants and the

urban renewal of their neighborhood it mirrors the changing land-

scape (both material and cultural) of Slotervaart and it aims at

Wien

Bollens

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

promoting a positive change within the relationship between these

two aspects of Slotervaart By making both children and adults

part of the design of a new neighborhood park the participants

became involved in the design of their built environment and

the hope was that this involvement would lead to a more positive

relationship between the inhabitants of Slotervaart and their

surroundings

However the recent data on safety and social quality in Slo-

tervaart do not hint at a more positive relationship between the

social and the material A recent news item on the authoritative

Dutch security industry website wwwsecurity-onlinenl reported

that the Slotervaart ward had asked Amsterdam mayor Job

Cohen for permission to keep the security cameras on five

squares in Slotervaart including the Abraham Staalman square

next to the location of the future park The website states that

neighborhood residents shop owners and the police support this

request because the cameras have since their installation in

2008 reduced the number of thefts and robbery and the trouble

created by the aforementioned loitering teenagers Another

measure that was recently taken involves the installation for a

period of three months of a so-called Mosquito device on the

Piet Mondriaan square in Slotervaart The Mosquito makes a

high sound that can only be heard by people under the age of

25 In fact the noise is so irritating that it chases teenagers away

from their regular hangouts The device is activated between

8 PM and 5 AM in order not to disturb younger children in the vicinity

of the device The sound cannot be heard indoors and does not

produce hearing damage These initiatives stand in shrill contrast

to the Face Your World participation project that was aimed at

designing urban scripts together with all affected parties rather

than imposing unwanted scripts on certain users in order to change

the ways in which they can use and appropriate urban spaces

There are two main reasons why a more positive relationship

between the social and the material has so far not been estab-

lished in Slotervaart First the discrepancy between the ways in

which teenagers and children were engaged in the public partici-

pation project Face Your World and the current measures that

curtail their urban freedom and independence are astounding

Some of the young people living in Slotervaart might have been

part of a participation project that asked for their opinion that

allowed them to co-design scripts for their neighborhood and

who are now a mere three years later followed by security

cameras and chased away by piercing noise The second reason

SecurityOnline

Stadsdeel

Slotervaart

164 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

promoting a positive change within the relationship between these

two aspects of Slotervaart By making both children and adults

part of the design of a new neighborhood park the participants

became involved in the design of their built environment and

the hope was that this involvement would lead to a more positive

relationship between the inhabitants of Slotervaart and their

surroundings

However the recent data on safety and social quality in Slo-

tervaart do not hint at a more positive relationship between the

social and the material A recent news item on the authoritative

Dutch security industry website wwwsecurity-onlinenl reported

that the Slotervaart ward had asked Amsterdam mayor Job

Cohen for permission to keep the security cameras on five

squares in Slotervaart including the Abraham Staalman square

next to the location of the future park The website states that

neighborhood residents shop owners and the police support this

request because the cameras have since their installation in

2008 reduced the number of thefts and robbery and the trouble

created by the aforementioned loitering teenagers Another

measure that was recently taken involves the installation for a

period of three months of a so-called Mosquito device on the

Piet Mondriaan square in Slotervaart The Mosquito makes a

high sound that can only be heard by people under the age of

25 In fact the noise is so irritating that it chases teenagers away

from their regular hangouts The device is activated between

8 PM and 5 AM in order not to disturb younger children in the vicinity

of the device The sound cannot be heard indoors and does not

produce hearing damage These initiatives stand in shrill contrast

to the Face Your World participation project that was aimed at

designing urban scripts together with all affected parties rather

than imposing unwanted scripts on certain users in order to change

the ways in which they can use and appropriate urban spaces

There are two main reasons why a more positive relationship

between the social and the material has so far not been estab-

lished in Slotervaart First the discrepancy between the ways in

which teenagers and children were engaged in the public partici-

pation project Face Your World and the current measures that

curtail their urban freedom and independence are astounding

Some of the young people living in Slotervaart might have been

part of a participation project that asked for their opinion that

allowed them to co-design scripts for their neighborhood and

who are now a mere three years later followed by security

cameras and chased away by piercing noise The second reason

SecurityOnline

Stadsdeel

Slotervaart

164 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

why this urban intervention did not yet have the desired outcome

worsens this discrepancy Face Your World has so far not resulted

in an actual physical and material urban intervention As Brand

makes clear in his research the material and the social should

develop synchronously should co-evolve So far however there

is no physical mirror of the project the inhabitants participated in

Face Your World was a successful participation project in

terms of the intended process effectiveness it involved remote

stakeholders in particular younger inhabitants and immigrants

of Slotervaart in the design of a new neighborhood park The

project was relatively successful in terms of outcome effective-

ness almost all the ethnically diverse inhabitants of Slotervaart

support the ultimate design of the park Resistance to the park

design came from the elderly white community in Slotervaart

who felt left out of the participation process Although the partici-

pation project in itself could thus be considered successful in the

sense that the team came up with a design that has been approved

by the municipality this alone is not enough to change the

dynamic between the material and the social in Slotervaart A suc-

cessful participation process in itself does not necessarily advance

the social fabric of a contested suburban area Referring to Stienen

we could say that Face Your World aimed at the ldquosymbolic recon-

struction and re-significationrdquo of a troubled neighborhood but

lacks so far the material intervention aimed at transforming the

built environment There was plenty ldquofrank and open dialoguerdquo

a necessary step in any design process as Brand points out but

no physical counterpart to substantiate this dialogue

Public participation projects can ameliorate the public accep-

tance of urban interventions only on the condition that the group of

participants is representative of those who will be affected by the

intervention and only on the condition that this group is allowed to

co-create and co-determine the design scripts that will find their

way into the neighborhoods Without a physical counterpart to

corroborate the participation process the positive effects of

public participation are cancelled out

Gerard

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 165

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Bibliography

M Akrich ldquoThe De-Scription of Technical Objectsrdquo in Wiebe Bijker and John Law

eds Shaping TechnologyBuilding Society Studies in Sociotechnical Change(Cambridge MA MIT 1992) Quotations from pages 208 and 208ndash209

M Akrich and B Latour ldquoA Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semioticsof Human and Nonhuman Assembliesrdquo in Wiebe Bijker and John Law eds Shaping

TechnologyBuilding Society Studies in Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge MAMIT 1992)

ldquoAlgemeen Uitvreidingsplanrdquo Wikipedia httpnlwikipediaorgwikiAlgemeen_Uitbreidingsplan Accessed November 24 2008

K Al-Kodmany ldquoComputer-Based Public Participationrdquo in Emina Sendich edPlanning and Urban Design Standards (Hoboken John Wiley and Sons 2006)

S Arnstein ldquoA Ladder of Citizen Participationrdquo in Richard T LeGates and Frederic

Stout eds The City Reader (London New York Routledge 2003) Quotation frompage 246

ldquoBevolking Stadsdeel Slotervaart naar Buurten en Herkomstgroepering 1 Januari2008rdquo Gemeente Amsterdam Kerncijfers (Amsterdam 2008) httpwwwos

amsterdamnltabel9778 Accessed November 24 2008

R Brand ldquoFrom the Guest Editor The Architecture of War and Peacerdquo Journal ofUrban Technology 162ndash3 (AugustndashDecember 2009) 1ndash8 Quotation from page 4

R Brand ldquoUrban Artifacts and Social Practices in a Contested Cityrdquo Journal ofUrban Technology 162ndash3 (AugustndashDecember 2009) 35ndash60 Quotation frompage 44

S Bollens ldquoIntervening in Politically Turbulent Cities Spaces Buildings andBoundariesrdquo Journal of Urban Technology 162ndash3 (AugustndashDecember 2009)79ndash108 Quotations from pages 82 102 and 79

J Broekhuizen Public Space Designer Personal Interview (Amsterdam 2007)

J Burns Connections Ways to Discover and Realize Community Potentials(New York London McGraw-Hill 1979) Quotation from page 25

ldquoCijfers Bevolkingsonderzoekrdquo Gemeente Amsterdam Cijfers Leefbaarheid en

Veiligheid Amsterdam (Amsterdam 2008) httpbuurtcijferseenveiligamsterdamnl Accessed November 24 2008

H Engelsman Area Developer for the Housing Corporation De Alliantie Personal

Interview (Amsterdam 2007)

Gemeente Amsterdam ldquoHerziening Richting Parkstad 2015rdquo Revision of the 2001Report (Amsterdam Gemeente Amsterdam 2006)

166 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Bibliography

M Akrich ldquoThe De-Scription of Technical Objectsrdquo in Wiebe Bijker and John Law

eds Shaping TechnologyBuilding Society Studies in Sociotechnical Change(Cambridge MA MIT 1992) Quotations from pages 208 and 208ndash209

M Akrich and B Latour ldquoA Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semioticsof Human and Nonhuman Assembliesrdquo in Wiebe Bijker and John Law eds Shaping

TechnologyBuilding Society Studies in Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge MAMIT 1992)

ldquoAlgemeen Uitvreidingsplanrdquo Wikipedia httpnlwikipediaorgwikiAlgemeen_Uitbreidingsplan Accessed November 24 2008

K Al-Kodmany ldquoComputer-Based Public Participationrdquo in Emina Sendich edPlanning and Urban Design Standards (Hoboken John Wiley and Sons 2006)

S Arnstein ldquoA Ladder of Citizen Participationrdquo in Richard T LeGates and Frederic

Stout eds The City Reader (London New York Routledge 2003) Quotation frompage 246

ldquoBevolking Stadsdeel Slotervaart naar Buurten en Herkomstgroepering 1 Januari2008rdquo Gemeente Amsterdam Kerncijfers (Amsterdam 2008) httpwwwos

amsterdamnltabel9778 Accessed November 24 2008

R Brand ldquoFrom the Guest Editor The Architecture of War and Peacerdquo Journal ofUrban Technology 162ndash3 (AugustndashDecember 2009) 1ndash8 Quotation from page 4

R Brand ldquoUrban Artifacts and Social Practices in a Contested Cityrdquo Journal ofUrban Technology 162ndash3 (AugustndashDecember 2009) 35ndash60 Quotation frompage 44

S Bollens ldquoIntervening in Politically Turbulent Cities Spaces Buildings andBoundariesrdquo Journal of Urban Technology 162ndash3 (AugustndashDecember 2009)79ndash108 Quotations from pages 82 102 and 79

J Broekhuizen Public Space Designer Personal Interview (Amsterdam 2007)

J Burns Connections Ways to Discover and Realize Community Potentials(New York London McGraw-Hill 1979) Quotation from page 25

ldquoCijfers Bevolkingsonderzoekrdquo Gemeente Amsterdam Cijfers Leefbaarheid en

Veiligheid Amsterdam (Amsterdam 2008) httpbuurtcijferseenveiligamsterdamnl Accessed November 24 2008

H Engelsman Area Developer for the Housing Corporation De Alliantie Personal

Interview (Amsterdam 2007)

Gemeente Amsterdam ldquoHerziening Richting Parkstad 2015rdquo Revision of the 2001Report (Amsterdam Gemeente Amsterdam 2006)

166 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Gemeente Amsterdam ldquoRichting Parkstad 2015 Ontwikkelingsplan Voor deVernieuwingrdquo (Amsterdam Gemeente Amsterdam 2001)

Gerard Local Resident of Slotervaart Personal Interview (Amsterdam 2007)

ldquoGeschiedenisrdquo Gemeente Amsterdam (Amsterdam 2007) httpwwwslotervaartamsterdamnlstadsdeel_in_beeldgeschiedenis Accessed November

24 2008

H Harbers ldquoPolitiek Van De Technologierdquo Kennis en Methode 3 (1996) 313ndash314

J van Heeswijk Developer of Face Your World Personal Interview (Amsterdam

2007)

J van Heeswijk D Kaspori and R Mosterd ldquoFace Your World 20 (Slotervaart)Weblogrdquo (Rotterdam 2005ndash2006) httpwwwfaceyourworldnlslotervaartAccessed November 24 2008

Hicham Personal Interview (Amsterdam 2007)

L Hoeve Slotervaart Ward Communications Advisor Personal Interview

(Amsterdam 2007)

A Hommels Unbuilding Cities Obduracy in Urban Socio-Technical Change(Cambridge MA MIT Press 2005) Quotations from pages 15 11 7

N de Jager ldquoWe Gaan Het Samen Maken De Staalmanpleinbuurt Vernieuwt OpAlle Frontenrdquo (Amsterdam 2007)

ldquoKerncijfers Stadsdeel Slotervaart 2004ndash2008rdquo Gemeente Amsterdam Kerncijfers(Amsterdam 2008) httpwwwosamsterdamnltabel8220 Accessed November

24 2008

I Ketelaar Slotervaart Ward Alderman Personal Interview (Amsterdam 2007)

Khadya ldquoPersonal Interviewrdquo (Amsterdam 2007)

M Lauwaert The Place of Play Toys and Digital Culture (Amsterdam AmsterdamUniversity Press 2009)

M van Lieshout W Bijker and T Egyedi ldquoSocial Learningrdquo in M van LieshoutW Bijker and T Egyedi eds Social Learning Technologies The Introduction ofMultimedia in Education (Aldershot Ashgate 2001)

E Lindeman L Bicknese and W Bosveld De Amsterdamse Burgermonitor 2006

(Amsterdam Dienst Onderzoek en Statistiek 2006)

A van Litsenburg ldquoBouw een Heilig Huisjerdquo (Amsterdam 2008) httpwwwvanannechiencom Accessed November 24 2008

Playing the City Public Participation in a Contested Suburban Area 167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

H Mackay C Carne P Beynon-Davies and D Tudhope ldquoReconfiguring the UserUsing Rapid Application Developmentrdquo Social Studies of Science 30 (2000)

Quotation from page 741

C McAtee ldquoThe Elements of Toy Townsrdquo in E Tingley ed La Ville en Jeux(Montreal Centre Canadien drsquoArchitecture 1997) Quotation from page 15

N Oudshoorn and T Pinch ldquoIntroduction How Users and Non-Users Matterrdquo inN Oudshoorn and T Pinch eds How Users Matter The Co-construction ofUsers and Technologies (Cambridge MA MIT Press 2003) Quotations frompages 9 and 2

G Rowe and L Frewer ldquoEvaluating Public-Participation Exercises A ResearchAgendardquo Science Technology and Human Values 294 (2004) Quotation frompage 513

SecurityOnline ldquoStadsdeel Slotervaart Cameratoezicht op Vijf Pleinen tot Juli

2009rdquo (The Netherlands 2009) httpwwwsecurity-onlinenlproductnieuwsphppnrfrac1411787 Accessed January 4 2009

ldquoSlotervaart Actueelrdquo Gemeente Amsterdam (Amsterdam 2008) httpwww

slotervaartamsterdamnl Accessed November 24 2008

Stadsdeel Slotervaart ldquoMosquito Tegen Jeugdoverlast Piet MondriaanpleinrdquoGemeente Amsterdam (Amsterdam 2008) httpwwwslotervaartamsterdamnlActItmIdtfrac14163361 Accessed January 4 2009

ldquoStedelijke Vernieuwingrdquo Gemeente Amsterdam (Amsterdam 2007) httpwwwosamsterdamnltabel9778 Accessed November 24 2008

A Stienen ldquoUrban Technology Conflict Education and Disputed Spacerdquo Journal of

Urban Technology 162ndash3 (AugustndashDecember 2009) 109ndash144 Quotations frompages 110 and 109

E Wiedemann ldquoThe End of Tolerance in Amsterdamrdquo New York Times (August 22007)

H Wien Project Leader of Slotervaart Ward Personal Interview (Amsterdam2007)

S Wyatt ldquoNon-Users Also Matter The Construction of Users and Non-Users ofthe Internetrdquo in N Oudshoorn and T Pinch eds How Users Matter TheCo-Construction of Users and Technologies (Cambridge MA MIT Press 2003)Quotations from pages 68 76 and 78

168 Journal of Urban TechnologyAugustndashDecember 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19

20 0

3 N

ovem

ber

2014