Active Citizens And Reactive Spaces: How Urban

Active Citizens And Reactive Spaces: How Urban Design Changes With Digital Technologies Andrea Manca

Department of Civil, Environmental Engineering and Architecture - DICAAR, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

abstract Participatory approaches, variously connoted, are widely recognized and fostered as valid tools for sustainable urban regeneration processes. In this perspective the research investigates the relationship between project of public spaces and digital technologies, the latter are considered in relation to their intrinsic and effective power of participation and transformation. This relation is expressed with a bottom-up approach, that exploits functions of sharing and communicating of information offered by ICT’s (Information and Communication Technologies), to develop operational methodologies that use the “virtual” to reinforce the “real”, able to create and feed incrementally urban, environmental and social quality. That way public spaces bring up as bearers of values of liberty, diversity and spontaneity. They become preferential places for the construction of citizenship and catalysts of the community. This determines a new design attitude, aimed at developing spaces capable of stimulating, channel and welcome citizens’ requests and visions, reacting quickly to the possible modifications generated by contamination and hybridization of new technologies in the physical space. The goal is to understand ongoing changes and probable futures for the project of public spaces; possible transformations, usable technologies and their role and their spatial and social repercussions. This work aims to analyze tools and operational methodologies to identify new possible directions of the urban design, which by implementing physical space with digital and immaterial, increases exponentially its ability to respond to contemporary urban challenges. keywords Urban Design, Public Space, Urban Regeneration, Citizen Empowerment, ICT’s

Introduction

Urban systems and the social regeneration of cities

Urban systems are an expression of the strongly felt and indispensable relationships which form between city spaces and the common collectivity. Therefore, the city is the result of delicate balances between citizens and administrators, who receive and become the mouthpiece for their requests for action (the social network). A city is thus the balance between spaces, their quality and the connections between them (the physical network) as well as information and networks and the ways in which these are managed and operate (the virtual network). The City, “Universal Architecture, both individual and collective, private and public” (Rossi, 1995: 9), must necessarily be conceived as an “opera” (Lefebvre, 1974), a shared practice of production and spatial signification, a “strategy” (de Certeau, 1984) in the creation of one’s own spaces in urban environments, defined by top down planning strategies. During the last fifty years, this conception of modern practices in the creation urban space has been significantly challenged.Nowadays, digital technologies increase the opportunity of sharing and expressing one’s visions and aspirations; moreover, they help to actively involve citizenry in projects designed to regenerate and transform cities. This process of openness to the community is made possible by the integration of digital technologies and physical space; the virtual space becomes an instrument for conception, implementation and management of the 547

Tirana Architecture Week 2018

physical space, promoter of new environments of dialogue between those involved (Cadeddu et al., 2016: 6) and catalyst of a renewed vision.

Public spaces, the places most favoured by urban communities Communities need a series of spaces to congregate that are representative of the city, and in essence, “public spaces are the elective places of urban life”. (Garau et al., 2015) since they tell us about historical, economic and social developments, representing a litmus test of a society’s well-being and vitality (Baumann, 2007) Contemporary Urban Design is a hybrid (Carmona, 2010) and polysemous (Cecchini 2004), discipline, a process that defines urban relations; it is primarily concerned with the quality of the public sphere – both physical and socio-cultural – and the making (and managing) of meaningful ‘places’ for people to enjoy and use (Carmona, 2010). It is in public spaces that people interact and develop visions and aspirations, confidence in themselves and in others and hopes for the future. If a place is unable to satisfy the expectations of its citizens, it cannot be considered an authentic place of focus for the community, which over time loses its sense of being urban. On the contrary, a place that should be of the citizens and for citizens must prevent this from occurring. It is a process of reciprocity that sees urban identity as an essential trait, in a process that starts with small individual practices and comes to involve an increasingly greater number of people right at the heart of the community, people whose lives are subsequently improved. A space in itself is therefore the result of a metamorphosis brought about by the population, who develop a real attachment towards these places that grows out of the concept of identity and belonging. Identifying yourself with a place is the result of space being made understandable from a multi-perspective and multidisciplinary perspective, construed as a social vision of urban space.

Participation, effective practice for public space The first step to activate the process is to improve relations, eliminating fixed hierarchies and dynamics that cause social exclusion, making the relations flexible and collaborative, in which the various levels of skills and participation can breathe life into the whole process, which ultimately aims to reach a common goal: to enable citizens to make the city and make citizenry by means of the city itself (Manca, Salaris, 2017). “People’s rights to the city” (Lefebvre, 2014), to feel a mutual sense of belonging (collective and interactive in the fruition of space); on a theoretical level it helps shape a substratum that governs an operational outlook which is “too important to be left to the architects”. Today, social involvement and participation is a crucial point in the scenario of architectural and urban design, but this is nothing new, rather a timeless way of building, which is simultaneously social, collective and spontaneous. With the crisis of Modernity from the sixties onwards, the theme of people participation has assumed renewed importance in the culture of project-making; since then, albeit in a fluctuating manner, it has had an acknowledged value within the theoretical-disciplinary debate through a series of critical openings to models and operational methods of conducting urban transformation processes aimed at allowing the direct participation and in some cases giving citizens exclusive control. Today, participatory approaches are a tool of recognized worth in the processes of sustainable urban regeneration, proving to be a powerful supporting tool in all steps of a project (its original conception, realization and management) “The downside is that the term has become a slogan and risks becoming a mere buzzword of the 21st century” (Siddi 2017: 14). Although a timeless notion, current models of participation first emerged in the second half of the 20th century. It was Giancarlo De Carlo who was committed to founding his project of architecture on user participation, involving people at all stages of its development (definition of the problem, elaboration of the solution and verification of the results), in an open, “articulated”, adaptable and democratic process. Only by so doing can architecture fully represent its end users, allowing them to actively fulfill their roles as citizens (De Carlo, 2015). The promotion of the participatory approach by the most important recommendations and strategic documents of the United Nations Conference on human settlements and sustainable development, has emerged above all in the three editions of Habitat, seeks to orient urban thought towards a people-oriented approach (Siddi, 2017: 14). This introduces two very important issues of contemporary city making: First of all, the importance of participation and participatory approaches at the base of the genesis of public spaces and the second is linked to how these processes developes. On the one hand, in fact, public space is the place of representation of the community, and 548

International Scientific Conference [CO]HABITATION TACTICS

at the same time becomes the place of participation. This becomes a practice that binds its becoming to public space. A vision so determined leads to the concept of prosumer, a direct and proactive actor, where skills and objectives, produce and use of space converge. Our main focus of concern is of course social change: the community as a whole must develop a collective awareness, acting and managing space autonomously, rather than expecting others to take responsibility. Participatory practices presuppose a variety of different operational approaches, in which inhabitants take on an active player role in the progress of their city, creating a dynamic system that requires the direct involvement of citizens in decision-making, thus going beyond the passive vision of systems that merely represent and delegate. There are two complementary factors at work here: a vertical structure that starts from the bottom (bottom-up), as opposed the top-down typical of traditional dynamics of action, and a horizontal dynamic conceived to explore the possibilities of imagining and building in a collaborative and inclusive way. It’s an approach that involves multiple forms of language and skills; on the one hand, specialized knowledge and on the other, the tacit and mutual knowledge of the users that participate. (Maciocco, Tagliagambe, 1997: 277). Nevertheless, this knowledge often remains trapped on different levels. One reason for this problem is that communication channels between experts and non experts are never transparent. The “informal” modes of action are very eloquent, as they determine in various ways the active involvement of citizens, often only partially to the institutional dynamics Tactical Urbanism (Lydon, 2012), DIY Urbanism, Handmade Urbanism (Rosada, 2012).

The digital revolution pervades urban spaces The unstoppable spread of digital technology has led to a paradigm shift that has spawned the “network society”, based on “cheap information input”, on a new networking rationale (Castells, 1996: 75), instigated by the development and application of information and communications technologies. Kazys Varnelis has taken the definition a step further, calling the phenomenon a “culture of networks” (Varnelis, 2013), a cultural model, which operates in the economy, in society, public life and at the individual level: everything and everyone is connected and interdependent. At the heart of this transformation lie the digital technologies that have amplified the flow of communication and information, distributed and shared through the medium of the Internet. In contemporary cities, digital networks are all pervading. We are witnessing a new kind of urban environment, where nonphysical processes are as important as actual spatial forms. “For the first time in the history of humanity we live in two spaces simultaneously: a physical space and a network space” (Varnelis, 2013: 32). Digital technology has therefore enabled us to break down every space-time barrier and this leads us to consider this simultaneity as a new reality. The product of this extension is the “architecture of connectivity” that brings together the three spatial contexts in which we live today: the human mind, the physical world and the network together negotiate and manage the thresholds between mental and virtual spaces. It all comes together in the cyberspace generated by the Internet and the World Wide Web (de Kerckove 2001: 7). Technology significantly conditions both the immaterial contexts of our culture, knowledge and social relations, and the material relations played out in urban space; its capacity to transform is ever-increasing. Digital infrastructure has consolidated its connection with space through the web 2.0 and social media, systems of location awareness and sensors and digital layers in which cities, in recent years, have been immersed. Through the convergence of the two elements of sensing and actuating, they make space more tangible (Ratti, 2012), enabling us to gain a renewed understanding of how cities function from a real-time perspective. The Internet has become the backbone of most communication, trade and work activities. The innovation in the creation of social bonds made possible by ICTs has given rise to the concept of “Collective Intelligence” (Levy, 1994); an increasingly widespread intelligence that constantly progresses. It is managed in real time and is based on developing horizontal relations, on mutual learning and on working towards common goals. Furthermore, important opportunities are being provided by mobile internet and geo-referencing tools, which together enable us to simultaneously combine a digital identity and a physical space, thus generating a “located collective Intelligence” (di Siena). Referring to a circumscribed geographical area, it provides a much more powerful tool of action than does the mere exchange of information and feedback through social media and affords a concurrent physical meeting place for all participants in public spaces. Lévy’s ideas have been taken up and further developed by Derrick de Kerckhove (2001), who discusses the evolution of the concept of “collective intelligence” into one of “connective intelligence”. The difference between the Internet and all previous forms of media is the role which it attaches to people; millions of connected people form a connected intelligence, a social digital network, whose synergy and interconnection amplifies its potential to innovate and resolve problems. To prosper it is necessary to share (de Kerckhove 2001: 78). The connection, 549

Tirana Architecture Week 2018

the network, the web, namely the coming together of different intelligences, highlights the “relationship” that they form with each other; a proliferation of intelligences fostered by this connection. Cyberspace is the new public space, where individual users are at liberty to mould their personal content to fit in with the common ground, also producing a strong impact on the physical form of the city. The principle of democracy recognizes the connective nature as a new political entity, based on the principle of individual responsibility exercised by each person online. As new tools and planning strategies increase, architects and planners will have to face new and exciting challenges.

Objectives With the exponential increase in the use of the Internet, the world of architecture is experiencing a transformation that affects the way it operates at its very core. Project culture sees this as an extremely powerful resource as it incorporates substantial and potentially limitless contributions from all subjects involved in the design process. Digital infrastructure pervades physical space, modifying the ways in which people interact with each other in space or with space. This increases the involvement of citizens in the creation of projects for the transformation of a city. This process of opening up to the community is made possible by the integration of digital technologies in and for physical space; virtual space is a tool for the conception, implementation and management of physical space. This determines systems capable of reacting and interacting with the digital information produced, collected and organized. The input of this information can be used to generate non-coded, therefore open and free action and interaction, in which citizens are called upon and actively respond by providing their contributions, making them available, as happens in any process of free software development. This modifies the ways in which the design practice is defined, both in the participated processes of urban transformation, and in the conception of spaces that react in real time to the modifying impulses generated by the data acquired and processed. The research investigates the potential of ICT as a tool to increase the participatory potential of the community in urban transformation processes. How participation can fit into the Urban Design process; what are the tools and methods that are recognized as useful and what are the real potentials in terms of effectiveness? What are the ways in which, in operational terms, the pervasiveness of the digital infrastructure and the tools indicated become able to channel the wills and transformative capacities of citizenship? How, in operational terms, the pervasiveness of the digital infrastructure and the tools indicated become able to channel the wills and transformative capacities of citizenship? And again, what are the real incremental effects of the participatory potential both in terms of process improvement and in terms of the characteristics of the spaces so determined? What are the new features and configurations that emerge in public space?

Methodology Theoretical Participatory models_ crisis and recovery To understand how, collectively, we can conceive, coordinate and define urban transformations, the methodology proposed involves a trans-disciplinary approach, analyzing the reference literature mainly borrowed from urban planning and from the governance and management of territories and the variety of theoretical-operational frameworks and methods of analysis (54 models). Such methods are designed to identify ways in which to better understand participatory dynamics in order to modify the forms and significance of constructed space. One of the most interesting classification criteria is the “Scale of Civic Participation” (Arnstein, 1969), a schematic representation of the complex social relations between citizens and administrations. This consists of eight steps, divided in turn into three basic categories, placed in ascending order. The lowest level is that of Non-Participation, the intermediate category is referred to as Degrees of Tokenism, and in the highest category there are the three values that guarantee power to citizens (Degrees of Citizen Power). Pedro Prieto Martìn (Martin, 2010: 41-44) points out that, contrary to what most important international organizations say, over time there has in fact been an involution of the categories initially proposed by Arnstein. (Fig. 1) Paradoxically, in 1999 the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) devised the “Spectrum of public participation”, a simplified version of Arnstein’s scale. It was made up of five levels of participation - informing, consulting, involving, cooperating and empowering. This simplification saw the removal of both ends of the scale, since the idea of citizens taking full control as a valid form of participation was excluded. Likewise, the lower end of the scale, i.e. the Non-participation category was also eliminated. Thus, any reference to public administrations manipulating or ignoring citizens’ opinions disappeared. 550

International Scientific Conference [CO]HABITATION TACTICS

Fig. 1: Pedro Prieto Martín (2010)_Changing Views on Participation. Comparation between the “Ladder of Citizen Participation”, the “Spectrum of Public Participation” and the “Government-Citizens Relations”.

According to Martin, however, a further step backwards was taken by the OECD with the publication of its “Government-citizen Relations” memorandum (Gramberger, 2001: 15-16). It was in fact a further simplification of the model, eliminating the two higher levels of the Spectrum, suggesting that the whole participatory phenomenon be reduced to just three levels: information, consultation and active participation. The first step, of “active participation” corresponds to the Consultation phase of the original scale, and contains everything that does not fall within the narrow categories of information and consultation. It is curious how what Arnstein denounced as “false” is now regarded as the essence of participation; the excessive simplification implemented by the OECD thus views citizen power as an unattainable utopia. The digital revolution and the diffusion of Internet, web 2.0, social software and location awareness tools has also led to an important change in the notion of participatory models. What is commonly affirmed is that web 2.0 can strengthen citizens’ resources, promoting a greater propensity for active civic awareness and participation. As a result of this phenomenon, terms such as e-Democracy, e-Participation and e-Government soon began to be used in the administrative field. In this respect, e-participation is now seen as a way to exploit the power of new technology (digital means of communication) to encourage the active participation of citizens in the decision-making process. This includes consultation, local representation and self-organization among groups of citizens. In 2002, Richard Kingston (Kingston, 2002: 4) published the “Ladder of e-participation” (Fig. 2) consisting of seven steps in ascending order; the first two see interaction as being one-way, while the next five, in increasing order, posit a two-way interaction, and therefore effective participation mediated by the web. This model shows the change of course determined by the use of ICTs, belonging fully to the notion of participatory practices and gave new impetus to the possibility of involving citizens in decision-making. Alongside participatory processes, the research on reactive spaces opens a new reference channel, which sees the possibility of interacting and modifying the physical character of the spaces themselves. In this sense, architecture becomes a means within which participation takes shape in real time and brings with it dynamic and changing characters. The spaces so characterized have a potential of implementability that substantially transforms the typical temporalities of the architecture. 551

Tirana Architecture Week 2018

Fig. 2: Richard Kingston (2002)_”E-participation Ladder”

The selection of case studies With case studies (Fig.3), seeks to demonstrate that, starting from Martin’s critical analysis, with the advent of the digital revolution there has been a resumption of the participatory potential. By systematising the various models (in particular the “Spectrum of Public Participation” and the “E-participation ladder”), we want to demonstrate how the 4 “active” steps of the “Spectrum of Public Participation” are satisfied. The selected case studies are therefore commonly characterized by participatory propensity and by the use of digital technologies as a medium, with a variety of possibilities that defines a gradient of inclusiveness and participation. The last case study is instead a true example of reactive space, sensitive to user input and able to modify its physical characteristics in real time. The choice of this specific example is determined by the character of innovation that has characterized it from the moment of its construction, defining a new vision in which architecture is a living element.



Active citizens_ Consult



Cityswipe DTSM

CitySwipe is an application developed by the non-profit organization Downtown Santa Monica Inc. to consult, facilitate feedback and make the Downtown Community Plan (DCP) process more transparent, inclusive and efficient. DCP is a document that will guide the future of the center city for the next 20 years. Cityswipe DTSM is a program to improve mobility, affordable housing options, open public space and many other urban issues. The interaction allows users to express an opinion about current characteristics or potential future scenarios proposed by scrolling left for “no” or right for “yes” depending on the rating. It is also possible leave comments.



Active citizens_ Involve

PPGIS for self-organized urban development: the case of softGIS in Pacific Beach (California) (Schmidt-Thome et al., 2014) The research was conducted by a group of researchers from the Aalto University (Finland) in Pacific Beach (California). The aim of the project was to demonstrate that a PPGIS application can facilitate self-organized urban development and prove to be an aid to urban planning. The experimented PPGIS application is called “softGIS”; this collects and processes geocoded and georeferenced data on some urban aspects, deriving from the compilation of online map-based questionnaires that told the citizens’ urban experience. The experimentation had its partner a local community organization, Beautiful PB, which played an important supporting role, above all facilitating the citizens’ approach to participation, the acquisition of data and the discussion phase of the results obtained. 552

International Scientific Conference [CO]HABITATION TACTICS

The questionnaire was divided into four main phases. _ basic information and location of the current residence on the map. _signifies the places visited every day and the routes considered important. _indication of the perceived environmental quality, which marks the positive and negative attributes, following four main themes: functional possibilities, social life, appearance and atmosphere of the environment. _ ideas and suggestions for possible interventions, locating them in the map After the implementation of the data, the association Beautiful PB was able to legitimately start a process of urban transformation and this has demonstrated the utility of PPGIS systems as a facilitator of self-organization and catalyst of social and spatial transformation.

Fig. 3: The case studies 553

Tirana Architecture Week 2018



Active citizens_Collaborate



Decide Madrid

The city of Madrid has for some years defined a mode of participation linked to the collective conception of urban transformations through participatory budgeting, a democratic process through which citizens can directly decide for what purposes to use part of the municipal budget. The process is based on portal decide.madrid.es. All residents of Madrid aged over 16 can, through the web or personally, propose and vote for an urban transformation project for the whole city or for a specific district. In 2017, 60 million euros were allocated (36 million for proposals located in the 21 districts and 24 million for large urban projects). The procedure is divided into 4 temporally defined phases: _ collection of citizens’ proposals. In each district are allocated, spaces for debate and for the collective construction of projects; _support of citizens, through the online portal, of the proposed intervention proposals; _evaluation by the city council technicians on the legal validity and on the economic aspect of the most voted proposals; - Final validity of the valid proposals, of which the estimated cost is also known, through the portal. The final result of the process will be obtained, once the voting is complete, by ordering all the proposals in each list (of the whole city and each district) by votes, and selecting the most voted.



Active citizens_Empower



El Campo de Cebada

El Campo de Cebada (ECDS) is an urban space located in the historic center of Madrid, in the neighborhood of La Latina, where previously was the public swimming pool and the sports hall. This is an example of how public space management can take new forms, overwhelming traditional hierarchies. A process of new signification of site has generated an inter-connected participatory management model, formed by horizontal relationships, where each user has equal rights of use of the space. One of key activities developed in this program have been the creation of a communication network between citizens, supported by digital (web and social networks). This is a real-time connection tool for facilitating the appropriation of space and the involvement of citizens in defining daily activities and spatial transformations based on emerging needs. It is a case of totally self-managed action, a great example of collective intelligence, in which it is of fundamental importance to take into account all the opinions originally reflecting the desires of the society that creates it. It is very important the support of different groups of architects (Exyzt, Zuloark, Basurama). The Comisión del Área de Gobierno de Desarrollo Urban Sustainable of Madrid announced on April 18, 2018 the definitive approval for the special restructuring plan of the Plaza de La Cebada. The inherited plan provides for the privatization of the area. The Special Plan contrarily, thanks to the participatory process developed since 2011, provides for the recovery of the existing building for the construction of a neighborhood market and the construction of an integrated system of public spaces.



Active citizens and reactive spaces_ Empower



Digital Water Pavilion

Designed by Carlo Ratti Associati (CRA)4 in 2008 for the Saragoza Expo, it was an innovative building boundary between the world of physical and digital architecture. The topic of the Expo was water; regulated and digitally managed from the interaction with users, water is the key element of this architecture. In the project all the walls were made of water. A sensor system, reacting to presence and movement of people, opened the wall of water to let visitors in. The interior of the building also had an interactive character: the rooms were adjustable according to how many people was present. At the end of the day, the pavilion could also be closed lowering the roof to the ground and causing the building to disappear. 554

International Scientific Conference [CO]HABITATION TACTICS

Results In a current and future vision where technology and digital networks are profoundly altering the way in which we perceive reality, the dynamics of urban regeneration have undergone significant changes over the past two decades. The study showed how the use of ICTs favors and enhances participatory processes by allowing a real and incremental involvement in the dynamics of how urban transformation comes about. They have strengthened the role of citizens through democratic decision-making processes, identity creation and community development. This also allows new interpretations of the city and helps users and planners in achieving process synergy. Important opportunities are now being provided by mobile internet, location awareness and geo-referencing tools. Using digital tools in a context of real time and space and being able to elaborate huge amounts of information, increases the ability to generate opportunities and synergies between the people who make use of such platforms. It is a model of a city based on a technological / social ecosystem where knowledge, collective action and interaction between people and space are enhanced by exploiting the possibilities offered by this union of physical and digital elements. The concept of open source (Ratti, 2014) in relation to public space projects is proving to be of the utmost importance. Open source architecture recognizes the fundamental role of all the participants in every project phase. Consequently, citizens assume the role of active protagonists in the transformation of the city, thanks to a more open management of decisional and planning processes. Citizens can directly contribute to processes of collective creation and transformation of urban space, creating control and feedback devices that enable them to take stock and become fully aware of the effect of actions. An open source city means free access to all, so makes data available (Open Data), thereby transforming the city. Furthermore, the integration of digital technologies and physical space means creating space that is tangible, characterized by the functional interaction between physical elements and users (Ratti 2013). Behind this vision there is a system made up of two components: a sensing component, i.e. a compilation of information, and an actuating component, implemented as a result of the information obtained. Through sensing, one is connected to objects; having access to information can give rise to a behavioral change that modifies a system, through a bottom-up involvement process. The actuating phase, which has greater potential, is designed to change the behavior of the elements reacting to the information collected. We are facing a revolution, that of convergence between bits and atoms, destined to become the most radical and disruptive change that has ever affected design (Ratti, 2016: 51). Focusing on participatory, collaborative and evolutionary potential, the communities, interacting with the reactive spaces, will have the tools of decision and transformation that facilitate the appropriation, thus increasing the sense of identity and belonging to the places. It is also interesting to think about what may be the effects on a series of heterogeneous urban cases, which presupposes the use of this type of approaches in different contexts of necessity. There is therefore a double level of results. The first is linked to participatory processes, increasingly focused on involvement, both in terms of quantity, characteristic determined by the opening granted by digital technologies, and in terms of quality, defining different degrees of participation. The second shows how the spaces themselves could contain, in their physical nature, the participatory potential to translate citizens’ requests. The ways in which these spaces can change their temporary characters, is determined by the type of information to which they are sensitive (for example environmental characteristics, presence and proximity or specific contributions, represented by defined information that citizens can provide. This last scenario represents the one with the greatest participatory potential, since it contemplates well-defined and customizable possibilities of change, favoring an interaction and transformation from below, capable of accommodating individual and collective needs, which can somehow concretely resolve social and spatial conflicts.

Conclusion Implementing changes within participatory models is necessarily the result of a historical, social, economic and cultural evolution, in which new paradigms alternate and with them collective demands are renewed. In operational terms, participatory practices have undergone a renewed impulse, deriving from the cultural and pragmatic upheaval determined by the “network society” and from the resulting profound alteration in our ways of perceiving, connoting and viewing reality. The need to analyze how participatory approaches see the role of ICTs and what their valuable and potentially incremental contributions might be on the dynamics of spatial transformation, which is the essence of architecture, entails making a complex series of considerations deriving from the study of methods, tools and practices. Such a contribution aims merely to provide a classification and a point of view (Fig. 4). 555

Tirana Architecture Week 2018

Fig. 4: Systematization of the “Spectrum of Public Participation” and the “E-participation Ladder”; identification of case studies in each category. It can be seen that “reactive spaces” wasn’t anticipated by Kingston.

If we understand the value of contemporary public space and we consider the needs related to the production of urban space, we can define the directions to be taken for any project which, by combining the physical potential with the digital and the immaterial, exponentially increases its capacity as a urban catalyst for the construction of important synergies between citizens and their places. Architecture, active and retroactive mirror (Emery, 2010: 23), sees digital technology as an extremely enriching tool for future developments of the Urban Design.

Acknowledgements My path at the Doctoral School in Civil Engineering and Architecture of the University of Cagliari, within which this research is found, welcomes essential intellectual and human contributions. My first, heartfelt thanks goes to Professor Cesarina Siddi, a substantial and indispensable guide to passion, rigor and foresight. To Professor Giovanni Battista Cocco for the continuous and consistent scientific support and to Fiammetta Sau, example of passion for research, dedication and professionalism. A special thanks goes to Chiara Salaris, a pervasive presence; vital, stimulating constant incentive to do better. 556

International Scientific Conference [CO]HABITATION TACTICS

References Arnstein, S., (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35: 4, 216 — 224 Arendt H., (1994). Vita activa. La condizione umana, Bompiani Bauman Z., (2007). Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertaintv. Polity Press, Cambridge. Castells M., (2014). La nascita della società in rete. Università Bocconi editore Cadeddu B., Cocco G.B., Sau F., Siddi C., (2016). Castello Toolkit. Cagliari, patrimonio storico vs usi contemporanei, Gangemi Carmona M., (2010). Public Places Urban Spaces. The Dimension of Urban Design. Architectural Press De Carlo G. (2015), L’architettura della partecipazione. Quodlibet De Certeau, M., (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press,Berkeley and Los Angeles De Kerckhove D., (2001). Architettura dell’intelligenza Testo & Immagine De Kerckhove D., (2014). Psicologie Connettive. Egea Emery N., (2010). Progettare, costruire, curare. Edizioni Casagrande, Bellinzona Gramberger M., (2001). Citizens as Partners OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. OEDC Kingston R., (2002). The role of e-government and public participation in the planning process. XVI AESOP Congress Volos, Greece Lefebvre H., (2014). Il diritto alla città, Ombre Corte Lefebvre H. (1974), La production de l’espace. Editions Anthropos, Paris Lévi P., (2002). L’intelligenza collettiva. Feltrinelli, Milano Maciocco G., Tagliagambe S. (1997). La città possibile. Territorialità e comunicazione nel progetto urbano. Nuova biblioteca Dedalo Manca A., Salaris C. (2017). Recipro-city: synergistic processes from informal actions...Proceedings of the International Conference on Changing Cities III: Spatial, Design, Landscape & Socio-economic Dimensions Syros, Delos, Mykonos Islands, Greece Prieto Martin P., (2010). Las alas de Leo. La participacion ciudadana del siglo XX. Asociacion Ciudades Kyosei Ratti C., (2014). Architettura Open Source: Verso una progettazione aperta. Einaudi, Torino Ratti C., Claudel M., (2016). The city of Tomorrow.Yale University Press. New Haven and London Ratti C., Mattei M. G. a cura di, (2013). Smart City, Smart Citizen. Egea, Milano. Rossi A., (2011). L’architettura della città. Quodlibet, Macerata: Schmidt-Thome et al., (2014). Exploring the use of PPGIS in self-organizing urban development: Case softGIS in Pacific Beach. The Journal of Community Informatics, Vol 10, No 3 Siddi C., (2017) Santa Teresa. I quaderni di cantiere aperto al pubblico. Linaria Varnelis K., (2012). Networked Publics. MIT Press

557