Collaborative processes for placemaking
Identifiers
Share
Statistics
View Usage StatisticsMetadata
Show full item recordAuthor
Date
2023Abstract
Chaudhuri uses placemaking to examine social processes through which various events, individual attachments and experiences are integrated into a physical space to create a shared sense of identity for the living space. Thomas (2016) says that networked urban areas are not new. Instead, they reveal contemporary planning practises in cities that rely on unique and concerted placemaking activities, social interactions and digital technologies to create public and plural places (Foth 2017a, 2017b; Friedmann, 2010; Houghton et al., 2015). The anthropological framings imagine places far less as a material or physical form, but rather as an intangible and heterogeneous cultural landscape that forms a historical cultural contingent with a shared approach and view (Gieryn, 2000). In this line of thought, placemaking can address many of the critical dynamics in current urban thinking and can be defined as “how diverse, and disparate practices, meanings and ideologies are used to create a collective identity for a place” (Murphy et al., 2019; Sen & Nagendra, 2019). Sometimes placemaking is about making new acquaintances in public places, perhaps to be considered safe for older people and children, or vibrant and engaging social spaces with children playing and visitors engaging in various activities, eventually ideal places to combat loneliness, and places without economic or social barriers, etc. Social bonding and emplacement lead to community management approaches where groups ensure the appropriateness of spaces through inclusivity.
Chaudhuri uses placemaking to examine social processes through which various events, individual attachments and experiences are integrated into a physical space to create a shared sense of identity for the living space. Thomas (2016) says that networked urban areas are not new. Instead, they reveal contemporary planning practises in cities that rely on unique and concerted placemaking activities, social interactions and digital technologies to create public and plural places (Foth 2017a, 2017b; Friedmann, 2010; Houghton et al., 2015). The anthropological framings imagine places far less as a material or physical form, but rather as an intangible and heterogeneous cultural landscape that forms a historical cultural contingent with a shared approach and view (Gieryn, 2000). In this line of thought, placemaking can address many of the critical dynamics in current urban thinking and can be defined as “how diverse, and disparate practices, meanings and ideologies are used to create a collective identity for a place” (Murphy et al., 2019; Sen & Nagendra, 2019). Sometimes placemaking is about making new acquaintances in public places, perhaps to be considered safe for older people and children, or vibrant and engaging social spaces with children playing and visitors engaging in various activities, eventually ideal places to combat loneliness, and places without economic or social barriers, etc. Social bonding and emplacement lead to community management approaches where groups ensure the appropriateness of spaces through inclusivity.
