BookPDF Available

Creative Placemaking: Research, Theory and Practice



This book makes a significant contribution to the history of placemaking, presenting grassroots to top-down practices and socially engaged, situated artistic practices and artsled spatial inquiry that go beyond instrumentalising the arts for development. The book brings together a range of scholars to critique and deconstruct the notion of creative placemaking, presenting diverse case studies from researcher, practitioner, funder and policymaker perspectives from across the globe. It opens with the creators of the 2010 White Paper that named and defined creative placemaking, Ann Markusen and Anne Gadwa Nicodemus, who offer a cortically reflexive narrative on the founding of the sector and its development. This book looks at vernacular creativity in place, a topic continued through the book with its focus on the practitioner and community-placed projects. It closes with a consideration of aesthetics, metrics and, from the editors, a consideration of the next ten years for the sector. If creative placemaking is to contribute to places-in-the-making and encourage citizenled agency, new conceptual frameworks and practical methodologies are required. This book joins theorists and practitioners in dialogue, advocating for transdisciplinary, resilient processes. © 2019 selection and editorial matter, Cara Courage and Anita McKeown; individual chapters, the contributors.
Creative Placemaking
This book makes a signicant contribution to the history of placemaking, presenting
grassroots to top-down practices and socially engaged, situated artistic practices and arts-
led spatial inquiry that go beyond instrumentalising the arts for development. The book
brings together a range of scholars to critique and deconstruct the notion of creative
placemaking, presenting diverse case studies from researcher, practitioner, funder and
policymaker perspectives from across the globe. It opens with the creators of the 2010
White Paper that named and dened creative placemaking, Ann Markusen and Anne
Gadwa Nicodemus, who offer a cortically reexive narrative on the founding of the sector
and its development. This book looks at vernacular creativity in place, a topic continued
through the book with its focus on the practitioner and community-placed projects. It closes
with a consideration of aesthetics, metrics and, from the editors, a consideration of the next
ten years for the sector.
If creative placemaking is to contribute to places-in-the-making and encourage citizen-
led agency, new conceptual frameworks and practical methodologies are required. This
book joins theorists and practitioners in dialogue, advocating for transdisciplinary, resi-
lient processes.
Cara Courage is an arts and placemaking academic and practitioner and is Head of Tate
Exchange, Tates programme and spaces dedicated to socially engaged art and the role of
art in society. Her book, Arts in Place: The Arts, the Urban and Social Practice (2017),
presents case-study research on social practice placemaking. Cara has also completed a
project as Research Adjunct on the metrics of creative placemaking with Thriving Cities,
an initiative of University of Virginias Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, and
continues her own social practice arts in place projects.
Anita McKeown is an interdisciplinary artist, curator and researcher working in creative
placemaking, Open Source Culture/Technology and STEAM (science, technology, engi-
neering, arts and mathematics) education. Anita works for Art Services Unincorporated
(ASU), an itinerant strategic platform which co-creates local-scale interventions that are
context-responsive and ecologically sensitive, arising from extended relationships with
people and place. ASUs interventions are underpinned by the permacultural resilience
framework and practical toolkit, a critical praxis for Creative Placemaking,trialledin
London, Dublin and New Mexico (200815). Anitas current research includes codesres:
Co-designing for resilience in rural development through peer-to-peer networks and
Routledge Studies in Human Geography
This series provides a forum for innovative, vibrant, and critical debate within
Human Geography. Titles will reect the wealth of research which is taking place
in this diverse and ever-expanding eld. Contributions will be drawn from the
main sub-disciplines and from innovative areas of work which have no particular
sub-disciplinary allegiances.
Place, Diversity and Solidarity
Edited by Stijn Oosterlynck, Nick Schuermans and Maarten Loopmans
Towards A Political Economy of Resource-dependent Regions
Greg Halseth and Laura Ryser
Crisis Spaces
Structures, Struggles and Solidarity in Southern Europe
Costis Hadjimichalis
Branding the Nation, the Place, the Product
Edited by Ulrich Ermann and Klaus-Jürgen Hermanik
Geographical Gerontology
Edited by Mark Skinner, Gavin Andrews, and Malcolm Cutchin
New Geographies of the Globalized World
Edited by Marcin Wojciech Solarz
Creative Placemaking
Research, Theory and Practice
Edited by Cara Courage and Anita McKeown
For more information about this series, please visit:
Creative Placemaking
Research, Theory and Practice
Edited by Cara Courage
and Anita McKeown
First published 2019
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 selection and editorial matter, Cara Courage and Anita McKeown;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Cara Courage and Anita McKeown to be identied as the
authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual
chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identication and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-1-138-09802-2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-10460-7 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.
List of gures viii
List of contributors ix
Preface xiv
Acknowledgements xvi
List of abbreviations xvii
Introduction: Curating research, theory and practice 1
Evolving Ecologies 9
1 Creative placemaking: Reections on a 21st-century American
arts policy initiative 11
2 Spaces of vernacular creativity reconsidered 28
Dialogical Ecologies 41
3 Turning local interests into local action: Community-based
art and the case of Wrecked! On the Intertidal Zone 43
4 Arrivals and departures: Navigating an emotional landscape of
belonging and displacement at Barangaroo in Sydney, Australia 56
5 A case for human-scale social space in Mumbai 69
Scalable Ecologies 81
6 A rural case: Beyond creative placemaking 83
7 Creative placemaking in peri-urban Gothenburg: Mission
impossible? 94
8 A conversation between a collaborating artist and curator:
Placemaking, socially engaged art, and deep investment in
people 109
Challenging Ecologies 125
9 Temporary spatial object/architecture as a typology for
placemaking 127
10 Place guarding: Activist art against gentrication 140
11 Outros Espaços: Apathy and lack of engagement in
participatory processes 156
Extending Ecologies 171
12 Towards beauty and a civics of place: Notes from the Thriving
Cities Project 173
13 From indicators to face validity to theory and back again:
Measuring outcomes of U.S. creative placemaking projects 187
vi Contents
Conclusion: Moving into the beyond Whats next for creative
placemaking? 200
Index 213
Contents vii
4.1 Families using the vintage typewriter in Arrivals and Departures,
Barangaroo Cutaway, 2015 58
4.2 Former residents and maritime workers projected within Barangaroo
Cutaway, with shipping containers as Storyboxes.Arrivals and
Departures, Barangaroo Sydney, 2015 59
6.1 M12 Studio (2016). The Breaking Ring. On view at the Center for
Contemporary Arts Santa Fe, New Mexico 88
6.2 M12 Studio, with Onix Architects (20152016). Last Chance
Module Array (Modules No. 4 and 5). Last Chance, Colorado 90
7.1 Apartment building in the Hammarkullen neighborhood with
a windowless concrete gable remade into a public work of art:
Every time I look up I feel happy, when I look down Im sad,by
the British artist Ben Eine 99
8.1 What is our work: Big Car Collaborative takes a holistic approach
to its work, seeing placemaking as a strategy for reaching
important, broader goals with communities 114
8.2 Why is this work so important: Its all about the whyor
the motives behind placemaking in the view of Big Car
Collaboratives team. Putting it in words helps clarify and
guide the work 119
11.1 Outros Espaços project online archive 160
11.2 Escritório de Rua interviews with local residents 163
11.3 Conversas no Sofá, interviews with and by Beja IIs residents
about the history and future of the neighbourhood 163
11.4 Renata conducting interviews with the local residents 168
13.1 National Endowment for the Arts (2015), The Arts and
Livability Indicators 191
13.2 National Endowment for the Arts (2017b), Our Towns Theory
of Change 196
13.3 National Endowment for the Arts (2017b), Our Towns
Logic Model 197
Luísa Alpalhão is a London- and Lisbon-based architect and artist and founding
member of the architecture, art and design platform atelier urban nomads.
Luísa has an MA in Architecture and Interiors from the Royal College of Art
and is currently a PhD candidate at The Bartlett School of Architecture,
University College of London, with a scholarship from Fundação para a
Ciência e Tecnologia. Her research consists of developing a methodology for
the making of participatory processes that can potentially become a pedago-
gical tool for the inhabitation and understanding of urban shared spaces.
Sarah Barns is a creative producer and researcher working across urbanism,
placemaking and experiential media. She co-directs the Sydney-based media
arts and design practice Esem Projects, and is a Research Fellow at the
Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University. Sarah has led
the creation of over twenty permanent and temporary installations across
Australia and New Zealand, and continues to advise public and private
agencies in elds spanning public art, urban strategy and community engage-
ment. Her research has been published across a range of journals including
Space & Culture, City Journal, Senses and Society and Architectural Review,
among others.
Tim Edensor teaches Cultural Geography at Manchester Metropolitan Univer-
sity and is currently a visiting scholar at Melbourne University. He is the
author of Tourists at the Taj (1998), National Identity, Popular Culture and
Everyday Life (2002), Industrial Ruins: Space, Aesthetics and Materiality
(2005) and From Light to Dark: Daylight, Illumination and Gloom (2017) as
well as the editor of Geographies of Rhythm (2010). Tim has written
extensively on national identity, tourism, ruins and urban materiality, mobi-
lities and landscapes of illumination and darkness. He is currently writing a
book about stone in Melbourne.
Anne Gadwa Nicodemus is a leading voice in the intersection of arts and
community development. Her company, Metris Arts Consulting, provides
planning, research and evaluation services to reveal artsimpacts and help
communities equitably improve cultural vitality. Recent Metris projects span a
case study of how a creative space in Zimbabwe fosters activism to a planning
process that integrates arts and culture into the work of a community devel-
opment organization with 250 afliates. Since 2012, Nicodemus has been
recognized as one of the USAs 50 most inuential people in non-prot arts in
WESTAFs annual peer-nominated list.
Margo Handwerker is the Director of the Texas State Galleries and a researcher
member of the M12 Collective. She is the co-author of A Decade of Country
Hits: Art on the Rural Frontier (2014).
Sunil Iyengar directs the Ofce of Research & Analysis within the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA), an agency of the US government. He is
responsible for overseeing studies, program evaluations and analyses about
the value and impact of the arts. Among his accomplishments at the NEA has
been establishing a research grants programwith a special track for experi-
mental and quasi-experimental study designs and a Research Labspro-
gram fostering transdisciplinary partnerships between researchers and arts
practitioners. He chairs a federal Interagency Task Force on the Arts and
Human Development, has edited dozens of NEA research publications and
data visualizations and has led the development of the National Archive of
Data on Arts & Culture, a free data repository available at www.icpsr.umich.
Torange Khonsari is an academic and practitioner specialised in citizen-led city
development. She co-founded the art and architecture practice Public Works
(2004), an inter-disciplinary practice working in the threshold of participatory
art, architecture, anthropology and politics that tests and implements the
academic research undertaken at The Cass, London Metropolitan University.
Khonsari is a Consultant on the Specialist Assistant Team (SAT) of the Mayor
of London on community development and cultural curation in regeneration.
She is Senior Lecturer at London Metropolitan University where she runs MA
Design for Cultural Commons. She has been a Consultant to UN Habitat on
sustainable development.
Anna Marazuela Kim is a Research Fellow of the Thriving Cities Lab at the
Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia, where
she advances research on the role of art and aesthetics in civic thriving. Kim
is an art historian and cultural theorist who writes and lectures on our complex
relation to images and their continuing ethical challenge, from Plato to the
digital age. She is the recipient of numerous fellowships and awards and
member of several international research groups. Currently she is a Visiting
Research Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies at University College
Michael Landzelius is Director of the Urban Safety and Societal Security
Research Center (URBSEC) at University of Gothenburg and Chalmers Uni-
versity of Technology. He is Associate Professor, positioned at the Department
of Sociology and Work Science, University of Gothenburg. He did his PhD in
Conservation of Built Environments, with an approach shaped under a post-
graduate year studying Geography at University of California Berkeley and
Syracuse University. Michael also spent two years as a postdoc in Geography at
the University of Cambridge. In addition to his present role as URBSEC
Director, he is Project Leader in a four-year research project entitled Reconci-
liatory Heritage: Reconstructing Heritage in a Time of Violent Fragmentations.
Ann Markusen is Principal of Markusen Economic Research (
and Professor Emerita at the University of Minnesota. Her publications include
Creative Capital Artists Look Back (2016); City Creative Industry Strategies
(2012); Creative Placemaking (2010); Native Artists; Crossover: How Artists
Build Careers across Commercial, Non-Prot and Community Work (2006);
and ArtistsCenters (2006). Markusen, who has a PhD in Economics from
Michigan State University, was Professor at Minnesota, Rutgers, Northwestern,
California Berkeley and Colorado Universities; Fulbright Lecturer, Brazil;
White Professor-at-Large, Cornell University; Bouseld Distinguished Profes-
sor, University of Toronto; Harvey Perloff Visiting Chair, UCLA; UK Fulbright
Distinguished Chair, Glasgow School of Art; and is currently a member of the
National Advisory Board Strategic National Arts Alumni Project.
Shauta Marsh is a co-founder of Big Car Collaborative, formed in 2004. From
2011 to 2015 she was Executive Director of the Indianapolis Museum of
Contemporary Art (iMOCA). There she curated and/or organized more than
forty exhibitions with artists including LaToya Ruby Frazier, Tony Buba,
Trenton Doyle Hancock and Richard Mosse. She returned to Big Car in
March 2015 as a Commissioning Curator and Program Director for its new
headquarters, Tube Factory artspace. Since opening the 12,000 square foot
museum/community center hybrid, she has worked with artists Carlos Rolón,
Jesse Sugarmann, LaShawnda Crowe Storm, Mari Evans, Pablo Helguera,
Scott Hocking and many others.
Steve Millington is a Director of the Institute of Place Management and a Senior
Lecturer in Human Geography at Manchester Metropolitan University. Work-
ing in partnership with key industry stakeholders and local centres, he is a co-
investigator on two major research projects analyzing town centre change and
development in the UK: ESRC-funded High Street UK2020 and Innovate-
funded Bringing Big Data to Small Users. Steve is co-editor of two edited
collections, Spaces of Vernacular Creativity (2009) and Cosmopolitan Urban-
ism (2005). He has published research on several facets of placemaking,
including lighting and place, and the relationships between football clubs and
their localities. Formed in 2006, the Institute of Place Management is the
international professional body that supports people committed to developing,
managing and making places better. The concept for the Institute was devel-
oped by the Manchester Metropolitan University and the Association of Town
Centre Management in the UK.
Contributors xi
Aditi Nargundkar Pathak is an architect and urban designer. She leads the
placemaking initiative The Urban Vision, enabling the use of public art in
plazas and designing human-centric streets and innovative plazas in Indian
cities. She has led and completed multiple demonstration projects creating
small social spaces which have changed the safety, aesthetics and use of the
citys public spaces. She is a visiting faculty in various colleges of architec-
ture and urban planning in Mumbai.
Stephen Pritchard is a Fine Art Tutor at Northumbria University. He recently
completed an AHRC-funded research-based PhD entitled Artwashing: The Art
of Regeneration, Social Capital and Anti-Gentrication Activism. He is an art
historian, critical theorist, activist, writer, curator and community artist. His
interdisciplinary approach to research is grounded in post-critical ethnography,
radical art history, Frankfurt School Critical Theory and Critical Urban
Theory. He has presented papers internationally, lectures widely and has had
several journal articles published to date. He also was commissioned by The
Guardian to write an article entitled Hipsters and Artists are the gentrifying
foot soldiers of capitalismin 2016. Stephen is also a member of the Move-
ment for Cultural Democracy and ArtistsUnion England, and is a founding
member of Isla99, Artists Against Social Cleansing and Socially Engaged and
Participatory Arts Network. He has worked in the arts since 2007 and founded
the community arts organisation dot to dot active arts CIC in 2013.
Peter Rundqvist has for many years been part of the City Council administra-
tion of Gothenburg, developing and leading different EU-nanced sustainable
urban development projects. He is a sociologist specialised in the eld of art
and culture related to social cohesion and migration in contemporary urban
development processes.
Dominic Walker is a cultural geographer at Royal Holloway, University of
London. His research explores the interface between art, politics and science
in contemporary environmental humanities discourse. Walker presented papers
at the Royal Geographical Society (2015, 2016, 2018) and American Associa-
tion of Geographers (2016) annual international Geography conferences,
alongside guest lectures in Pittsburgh (2015) and Exeter (2014, 2015). He
has collaborated with several international artists, and was a Visiting Research
Fellow in Carnegie Mellon Universitys School of Art (2015) and the Center
for PostNatural History (2015). He has published in Society and Space (2015)
and has a further two papers awaiting submission to the journals GeoHuma-
nities and Area.
Jim Walker is CEO of Big Car Collaborative, an Indianapolis, Indiana-based
nonprot social practice art and placemaking non-prot. Walker serves as
lead artist on Spark Placemaking, a Big Car program bringing engagement-
based public programming and people-focused design to communities. He
also leads Big Cars work to utilize cultural strategies to support equitable
revitalization in long overlooked neighborhoods south of downtown
xii Contributors
Indianapolis. Walker who received his MFA from Warren Wilson College in
Asheville, N.C. has worked as a teacher, journalist, designer, and public
artist. He also currently teaches in the University of Indianapolis Social
Practice Art and Placemaking graduate program.
Joshua J. Yates is a cultural sociologist and social entrepreneur whose work
bridges the worlds of academic theory and social practice. He is currently
Research Director of the Thriving Cities Lab, an initiative of University of
Virginias Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, where his scholarly work
focuses on the changing paradigms of civic life in 21st-century urban
contexts, and Chief Executive Ofcer of the Thriving Cities Group, a non-
prot organization equipping cities to cultivate their civic capacity and civic
infrastructure through community-centred data, technology and advice.
Contributors xiii
This book has arisen from a transatlantic conversation between eponymous
creative placemaking conference sessions at the Royal Geographical Society,
Exeter, 2015, and the Association of American Geographers, San Francisco,
2016. These sessions worked to unpick the notion of creative placemaking and
offered a practitioner-led critique and examples of practice in conversation with
an academic- and research-based discourse. As placemaking practitioners and
researchers, we both felt that the arts-driven placemaking sector had reached a
moment in both maturity and breadth where it demanded critique and a deeper
understanding of practice, requiring in turn a meaningful and dynamic dialogue
between theorists and practitioners. If creative placemaking is to contribute to
places-in-the-making (Silberberg, 2013) and encourage citizen-led agency, new
conceptual frameworks and practical methodologies will be required, advocating
transdisciplinary, resilient processes and new models of theory and practice. This
book aims to be part of that sector development.
Creative placemaking is often addressed as a subset of placemaking and is
commonly, and this book would argue, reductively, recognised for the instru-
mentalised potential of art to contribute to regeneration and revitalisation. Such
an approach has little engagement with the heritage of non-object arts, design or
architectural practices, those situated interventions and durational practices that
have emerged over fty years of arts in placeand in much placemaking
spanning both the social and public realms. This book works then to interrogate
a populist or sector vernacular denition and understanding of creative place-
making and to extend its denitions and understandings through both academic
and practitioner voices. As a still-nascent eld, emerging from a US policy
platform, creative placemaking is still evolving, yet enacted at a global scale. A
review of key funders from 2010 to 2015 by co-editor Anita McKeown revealed
that the majority of creative placemaking projects were artistslive-work spaces,
cultural quarters, landmark arts centres or monumental public artworks. This
focus does little to advance the eld or present emergent praxis, which is
systemic in its approach. The book aims to address this decit by representing
a range of practices across themes that are pertinent to the social or public realms
and to signal progressive changes to future challenges. A range of scholars and
artist-scholars present socially practiced, co-produced and citizen-led placemakings
as an inside-out response rather than simply a bottom-up need or desire or top-
down imposition, with artists, participants and a range of creatives and other
professions forming ecologies of practice.
The chapters in this book dont all agree with each other it is not our
purpose to form a consensus, but to give a platform to a diverse cohort of voices
across the maturing creative placemaking sector, and to prompt the reader into
their own critique, reection on their own practice and position in the sector. We
embrace differing perspectives and opinions in the construction of our conference
session and this book, each chapter in dialogue with others and inviting further
research and debate, which we hope will have a life beyond the publication. We
are honoured too to have the reexive voice from the founding of creative
placemaking and from its practice, offering a mix of rst- and third-person
narrative, conversation and reection, a reection itself on the nature of a
critiquing enquiry and of the prominence of the active placemaker, a thinking
through doingand of practice-based research. With professional practices in
social practice curation (Cara), as an artist (Anita) and as placemakers (both), we
took a curatorial approach to the conferences sessions, and have done so again
for this book. This approach is discussed in the opening chapter.
Both UK and American English feature in this publication, recognising the voice of
contributors and direct quotes from other texts, artists and project participants.
Silberberg, S. (2013) Places in the Making: How placemaking builds places and commu-
nities. MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning [Online] Available at: http://dusp. (Accessed: 13 August 2015)
Preface xv
The editors would like to thank all the contributors for their dedicated work and
inspired contributions to this book, as well as the team at Routledge. Thanks are also
due to the Royal Geographic Society, UK, and the Association of American
Geographers, USA, for giving an ongoing platform to bring arts into geographical
contexts and organising the conferences that were the beginning setting of this
publication. We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge two of our
valued session contributors, Marie Mahon, Ireland, and Eje Kim, Republic of Korea,
who were unable to contribute to this publication. Furthermore, we would like to
thank all those communities and artists referenced in this book for their invaluable
contribution to questioning and extending creative placemaking practice.
a2ru Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities
AAF American Architectural Foundation
AAG American Association of Geographers
ASU Art Services Unincorporated
AUD Australian dollars
AUN Atelier Urban Nomads
BHAAAD Boyle Heights Alliance Against Artwashing and Displacement
BSC Balfron Social Club
CAE Critical Art Ensemble
CCI[s] Cultural and Creative Industries
CEO[s] Chief Executive Ofcer[s]
CLT[s] Community Land Trust[s]
DOT Department of Transportation
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
GDNE Gothenburg Development North East
HUD Housing and Urban Development Department
IHRU Instituto de Habitação e Reabilitação Urbana
iMOCA Indianapolis Museum of Contemporary Art
LGBTQI+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning and
LQC Lighter-Quicker-Cheaper
MACLA Movimiento de Arte y Cultura Latino Americana
MICD MayorsInstitute on City Design
MSB Maritime Housing Board
NEA National Endowment for the Arts
NGO[s] Non-Governmental Organisations
NSW New South Wales
ORU Operações de Reabilitação Urbana/Urban Rehabilitation
PwC PricewaterhouseCoopers
RFP Request for Proposals
RGS Royal Geographical Society
RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
RTR Roman Road Trust
SEK Swedish krona
SIAP Social Impact of the Arts
SNAG Southwark Notes Archive Group
STEAM Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics
TRF The Reinvestment Fund
URBSEC Urban Safety and Societal Security Research Center
USCM United States Conference of Mayors
V&A Victoria and Albert Museum
VALI Validating Arts and Livability Indicators
xviii Abbreviations
Curating research, theory and practice
Cara Courage and Anita McKeown
The curatorial approach taken to the conference sessions this book has arisen
from, and to the book itself, was a deliberative, and, as arts practitioners, intuitive
act, orientated as we are towards an expansive understanding of the role of the
curator and the curatorial praxis.
The arts sector has seen a curatorial turn that has widened its scope from art
museum or gallery exhibition to include enabling, making public, educating,
analysing, criticising, theorising, editing and staging(Jackson, 2015, p.62) the
knowledge base of the curator has expanded and been de-centred, and multiple
disciplines have been incorporated into its purview. We take this a stage further to
include academic presentation across research dissemination platforms and the
practitioner voice in the academy. Within our practice and academic elds (sepa-
rated here only notionally), we see an entanglement of actors(Jackson, 2015,
p.15) rather than siloed or xed-boundary positions and seek to engage academia in
this praxis as an active concern. For us, the curatorial is a a more viral presence
consisting of signication processes and relationships between processes and
relationships between objects, people, places, ideas, and so forth, a presence that
strives to create friction and push new ideas(Lind, in Jackson, 2015, p.65).
Thus, our curation is co-produced, is collaborative and dialogical, as is our
placemaking practice. With the abundance of content and channels of content
communication within academia and the arts alone, the curatorial is a vital and
critical approach to take for sense-making, dissemination and whether academic,
researcher or practitioner, the expansion of our intellectual and creative endea-
vours. The curatorial imbricates the folding and unfolding of academic and
practitioner knowledge and provides a critical framework to nd and assess
information. It requires traditional and information literacy, visual and critical
literacy (Dale, 2014, p.203) and the critical faculty to add value to, rather than
just share, information. This is curating of the cognitive value and the material in
this book has been chosen to support the best writing and research undertaken
in the creative placemaking sector and to make this work more available to
those within and without the academy, especially, as a practitioner-led eld, to
the placemakers themselves.
Our co-organised conference sessions at the Royal Geographical Society
(RGS) and American Association of Geographers (AAG) (see Preface) and this
book manifest a curatorial framework of critically engaged practice and a mode
of becoming(ONeill and Wilson, 2015, p.12) of theory, research and
practice. Responding to the conferences themes (Geographies of the Anthro-
poceneat RGS, and at AAG, Thriving in a Time of Disruptive in Higher
Education,International Geography and Urban Health Symposiumand
Symposium on Physical Geography and Challenges of the Anthropocene),
we devised our thematic response of galvanising, continuing and re-invigorat-
ing the arts-led conversation, our mode of enquiry for the sessions and
learning objectives and plenary questioning. The sessions were formed from
an open call for papers as well as targeted approaches to our trusted net-
works. Submitted abstracts were put through a process of ltration, evaluation
and assemblage, checked against the theme and our session-learning objec-
tives. The disparate sources of information that is a portfolio of papers were
ordered to present a coherent narrative arc across the theme; for example,
moving from a global to a local perspective or moving from the theoretical to
the practice-based enquiry.
This process, informed by our curation as artistic practice, utilises formas a
means to advance understanding and speakers were offered guidance in advance
on content in this regard. When in the conference room, the sessions were a
space for active engagement with experts and peers between speakers and
delegates, resulting in a mutual gaining of insight and embedding of new
thinking. The composition of the narrative arc curated the panellistspresenta-
tions as a series of landing points from which to navigate the eld. This served to
create an experience in which the space between the contributions informed
understanding as much as what was presented.
Through traversing geographic, intellectual and infrastructural constructs, the
sessionscuration sought to encourage a diverse landscape to create an
interdisciplinary ecology that facilitated the cross-pollination of knowledge.
This in turn encouraged and supported our understanding of creative place-
making as a collaborative, participatory process and taking an ecological
approach to theoretical and practical framing and questioning. Seating plans
of plenary sessions were chosen for best t to the learning objectives, and
ranged from conventional classroom setting to cabaret, world café, conversa-
tion circle. Interdisciplinarity has been a constant mode of enquiry –‘not only
a matter of going beside the disciplines but of breaking them(Jackson, 2015,
p.6) as has been the curatorial conversation of the closing plenary or
discussant. To this end, our curatorial approach through this publication
further endeavours to encourage the reader to select sections and chapters at
will, co-curating their own exploration of the contributions to develop further
understanding and questioning.
The curation of the conference sessions sought to engage with the vital
conversations that we as editors, through our own research on placemaking and
earlier critiques of cultural regeneration, had identied as problematic for the
creative placemaking sector, which, principally at the time of writing, revolved
around issues of gentrication, participation and exclusion. Our purpose behind
2Cara Courage and Anita McKeown
curating research, theory and practice is to offer an approach that can structure and
demonstrate a multiplicity of positions, models and voices at their intersection
(ONeill and Wilson, 2015, p.12). Topics and themes create a constellation that can
generate reection, debate and the extension of both research and practice processes.
This operates on two levels: the choosing and framing of the topic, and the choosing
of its components and their presentation, which (together via the programming)
enable and enhance reexive dialogues among audiences and participants(Nelund,
2015, p.174). Throughout this process, our own reective practice mined the RGS
sessions to extract common themes, questions and avenues for further inquiry that
informed our second set of sessions at AAG the following year.
This curation is further manifest within the booksEcologies organisational
structure, which references a conversation deeply embedded in creative place-
makings heritage: the need for an ecological approach as identied in the work
of Stern and Seifert (2006) within the Social Impact of the Arts (SIAP) at Penn
State. In a radical pairing, Joan Shigegawa, Head of the Rockerfella Foundation
(soon to be Deputy Chair to Rocco Landesmans Chair of the National Endow-
ment for the Arts (NEA)), negotiated an innovative collaboration between SIAP
and The Reinvestment Fund. This culminated in an inuential report Culture
and Urban Revitalisation (20068), an important in-depth critique of The Rise of
the Creative Class (Florida, 2002), which recommended the need for an ecolo-
gicalapproach to including the arts within urban revitalisation. Shigekawas
relationship to this partnership and report, an important inuence on the early
development of creative placemaking, is evident in the curatorial organisation of
the book.
Further, the use of ecologies as metaphor and formal construct presents not
only the need for an ecological systemic approach to actualise creative place-
makings generative potential but references the need for dynamic practices that
transcend the bi-polarities of top-down or bottom-up, a key discontent within the
eld, and which are necessary to devolve power, encourage self-organisation and
agency and integrate citizensexisting placemaking practices. Resilient and co-
produced instances of creative placemaking are moving towards a processual
open source approach (Silberberg, 2013) and have become more common since
our exploration of the eld began in 2015. Early drivers of the sector, the NEAs
and ArtPlacesreection on their own processes now sees support shifting from
capital projects, such as the monumental and plaza or waterfront development,
towards a broader transference of power from external local or centralised
authority and towards opportunities to develop agile resilient practices.
Section 1 Evolving Ecologies
The books curation seeks to present advancement, and as such the rst section,
Evolving Ecologies, opens with two reective chapters that reect on the eld
through revisiting earlier scholarship. The four scholarswillingness and enthu-
siasm to rethink earlier research and present the long view initiates a grounded
exploration of creative placemaking, our rst aim for the book. The theoretical
Introduction 3
and practical concerns that the book presents move away from a traditional
placemaking foci often manifest within urban development as the waterfront,
plaza or the market place towards arts-led socially engaged processes that
encourage a deeper level of public participation and agency. The opening section
sets the scene for this objective by presenting key concerns that have been
present within the eld since its inception, yet acknowledges that despite
progress, creative placemaking is a process that is still evolving. Ann Markusen
and Anne Gadwa Nicodemus, the authors of the original White Paper (2010)
commissioned by Rocco Landesman, Chair of the NEA, review close to a decade
of work, designed by the Obama-appointed NEA administration. This foundation
is strengthened by Edensor and Millingtonsreections on their edited volume
Spaces of Vernacular Creativity: Rethinking the Cultural Economy (2009).
Emerging as Landesman was coining the phrase creative placemaking, Edensor
and Millington presented a critical response to predominant discussions on
creative geographies. As a companion piece to Markusen and Gadwas text,
Edensor and Millingtons chapter serves to contribute to an understanding of the
landscape that informed our initial concerns: the potential of creative placemak-
ing and the limitations posed by a focus on economic impact and how this in turn
shapes regeneration policy.
The second objective of the book was to extend denitions and the under-
standing of creative placemaking, and the chapters that follow Section 1 offer a
rich breadth and depth of projects that traverse urban design and art heritage,
theory and practice, planning and policy and cultural and place heritage and
politics. Many of the scholars and practitioners contributing to this collection are
engaged in a critical process of creative placemaking as well as moving beyond
the connes of their discipline and its training to interrogate the issues that have
led to many of the criticisms of the practice and sector.
Section 2 Dialogical Ecologies
The three chapters presented in Section 2, Dialogical Ecologies, illustrate the
books aims by initiating a conversation between theory and practice from three
perspectives: a geographer, an artist-scholar and an architect. Collectively, these
chapters simultaneously highlight the potential of creative placemaking and its
discontents from within three distinct geo-political contexts, reafrming the need
for an overarching ethos that allows for non-formulaic context-responsive and
adaptive approaches. Within these chapters the authors present key criticisms of
creative placemaking that pertain to issues of place attachment and belonging,
present in discussions of creative placemaking from early in its inception.
Creative practice in the broadest sense offers avenues for understanding and
expressing place identity through articulation of psychosocial processes including
comprehension of self and other, inclusion and exclusion in processes and
systems that affect feelings of belonging and, as Bedoya (2013) has discussed,
4Cara Courage and Anita McKeown
Walkersreection on a collaborative interdisciplinary citizen-led social prac-
tice project, Wrecked! On the Intertidal Zone (20146), shines a light on the
value of the arts to contribute beyond economic development. Through situated
practice, Wrecked! brought together multiple actors local arts groups, citizens,
Arts Catalyst and Critical Art Ensemble to produce social and cultural capital
as a response to water pollution and high shipping volume in the Thames
Estuary, UK. Barns raises awareness of the instrumental logic behind the support
of culture-led projects in Australia through government nance and urban
regeneration projects, and cites this as leverage for temporary programming.
This segues into an exploration of the renowned Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper
(Reynolds in MacIver, 2010) process (advocated for by the placemaking agency
Project for Public Spaces) within the nal chapter in this section through projects
in Mumbai by Patak, the Director of Urban Vision, along with a team of urban
innovators, architects, artists and urban designers. Urban Visions consideration
of a Western concept highlights issues prevalent in all three sections: the need for
awareness and sensitivity to local contexts when transferring models and work-
ing in contested arenas.
Section 3 Scalable Ecologies
Scalable Ecologies positions perspectives of scale in dialogue, bringing together
three contributors who address issues of location through rural, the peri-suburban
to the urban; issues of practice from the individual to municipal level; organisa-
tional issues within small and larger scale actions and approaches to creative
placemaking. Handwerker, a researcher and member off M12 arts collective,
assesses creative placemaking from a rural perspective informed by critical and
historical reections augmented by a practice that is place-based and by the
realities and complexities of rural life in the United States. Handwerker raises
awareness of challenges to creative practices in a rural context and how creative
placemaking can dilute limited funds from the arts to social services and private
development, rather than being a means to increase resources and embed the arts
more concretely in all aspects of placemaking.
Landzelius and Rundqvist chart the evolution of a project in a peri-urban
context, the north-east of Gothenburg, which explored an assumption that
Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs) could serve as an instrument for the
citys integration and economic development policies. The chapter presents the
shift from cultural policy driven by a socially orientated state-level system
towards an entrepreneurial neoliberal approach, while illustrating the difcul-
ties and conicting ideologies and social requirements at play within public
sector-initiated projects within vulnerable, economically weak and socially
segregated areas.
The section concludes with a conversation undertaken on a research road trip
between Big Car Collaborative founders Walker and Marsh as they visited North
American rust-belt cities. Now in its fteenth year as a socially engaged art and
placemaking organisation, Big Car is an integral part of a community in the
Introduction 5
urban core of Indianapolis, Indiana. Literally travelling through ideas, experi-
ences and a physical landscape that is adopting creative placemaking solutions
as they drove, Big Car present pertinent aspects for creative placemaking
Section 4 Challenging Ecologies
Challenging Ecologies presents the perspective of three scholar-practitioners
testing their eldsconventional practices. These perspectives offer important
insights into a critical reection of standard practices that informs both the eld
of creative placemaking and the education and training of those working
professionally in disciplines that are engaged in the practice. Concerns around
ownership and authorship are dealt with in different ways by each author yet
underpinning their contributions is the recognition that creative placemaking is
not the preserve of the professional placemaker; instead they acknowledge the
necessary and long-standing role multiple individuals contribute to the practice
of placemaking that is creative and occurs every day and in many ways.
Khonsaris introduction to the role of temporary spatial objects/architectures
considers how such territorial interventions can facilitate civic use and social
empowerment as a tactical approach to resist privatised enclosures in urban
areas. Using a comparative study, Khonsari presents the historical context of
temporary spatial objects/architectures: the Soviet Agitational Propaganda Vehicles
(Agitprop trains, 1920) and The Fun Palace by Joan Littlewood and Cedric Price
(1960) in conjunction with two contemporary London case studies. Khonsaris
counterpoint highlights the problematics of control and powerand the need for a
spatial practitioner to have critical understanding of power relationships and
dynamics within neoliberalism.
Following on from Khonsaris polemic, Pritchard suggests that creative place-
making perpetuates the gentrication associated with Creative City and Creative
Class models, arguing that creative placemaking enacted via state and local
authority policy and corporate partnerships, integrates art, community and
economic development, and as such is a neo-liberal tool. As a rebuttal to this
argument Pritchard advocates the process of place guarding(collective acts of
protecting existing people and places) as a way of artists resisting artwashing
(the use of art as a veneer or mask for corporate or state agendas) (OSullivan,
2014), which, he argues, is embedded within creative placemaking. Alpalhãos
pertinent reection on participation and apathy within Outros Espaços (Other
Spaces) (201415) highlights the complexity and pitfalls of participatory civic
engagement within multi-agency regeneration.
Section 5 Extending Ecologies
The closing section, Extending Ecologies, offers signposting to the type of
thinking that is taking the creative placemaking sector into its next era. Kim
and Yateschapter builds on current understandings of the complexity of cities
6Cara Courage and Anita McKeown
and their signicance for the future. Increasingly, there is recognition of the need
for an ecological model of cities that acknowledges an ecosystem with living and
non-living organisms co-existing in dynamic interactions. This poses challenges
to conventional approaches to planning and management as such environments
are complex, with their dynamism requiring conditions that allow for constant
change and evolution if they are to thrive.
The nal chapter returns the reader to creative placemakings inception, as
Iyengar, the NEAs Director of the Ofce of Research & Analysis, documents
its journey and move to a Theory of Change model. Iyengarsreection is an
optimistic perspective on creative placemakings evolution at practitioner,
funder and administrative levels. It is an appropriate milestone on which to
end the book, as creative placemaking nears completion of its rst decade.
Through a longitudinal consideration and evaluation of intended and unin-
tended outcomes from practitioners, the NEA has listened, acknowledged and
integrated the knowledge from those enacting creative placemaking in the
In this spirit, we now invite you to follow our own journey through this book,
following our curated path or by devising your own, and hope that it both
illuminates creative placemaking practices and processes and informs your own
research, theory and practice in the same.
Bedoya, R. (2013). Creative Placemaking and the politics of belonging and disbelonging.
World Policy, Arts Policy Nexus series May 13, 2013. Available at: www.worldpolicy.
[Accessed: 25 March 2018].
Dale, S. (2014). Content curation: The future of relevance,Business Information Review,
31 (4): 199205.
Davis, J. L. (2017). Curation: A theoretical treatment,Information, Communication &
Society, 20 (5): 770783.
Edensor, T., Leslie, D., Millington, S., & Rantisi, N. (Eds.). (2009). Spaces of Vernacular
Creativity: Rethinking the Cultural Economy. New York: Routledge.
Florida, R. L. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How Its Transforming Work,
Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
Jackson, G. (2015). And the question Curating Research,ONeill, P. and Wilson,
M. (eds.). London: Open Editions.
MacIver, M., (2010). Eric Reynolds, Master of Low-cost, High Return Public Space
Interventions in London and NYC. Available at
of-low-cost-highreturnpublic-space-interventions-in-londonand-nyc/. [Accessed: 9
August 2010].
Nelund, S. (2015). Home worksin Curating Research,ONeill, P. and Wilson, M. (eds.).
London: Open Editions.
ONeill, P. and Wilson, M. (2015). An opening to curatorial enquiry: Introduction to
curating and researchin Curating Research,ONeill, P. and Wilson, M. (eds.). London:
Open Editions.
Introduction 7
OSullivan, F. (2014). The Pernicious Realities of Artwashing. [Online] Available at:
[Accessed 26 September 2016].
Potter, J. and Gilje, Ø. (2015). Curation as a new literacy practiceE-Learning and Digital
Media, 2 (2): 123127.
Silberberg, S. (2013) Places in the Making: How Placemaking Builds Places and Commu-
nities. MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning [Online] Available at: http://dusp. (Accessed: 13 August 2015)
Stern, M. and Seifert, S. (2006). From Creative Economy to Creative Society. Creativity and
Change. Philadelphia, PA: Social Impact of the Arts Project and The Reinvestment Fund.
8Cara Courage and Anita McKeown
Alvarez, M. (2005). Theres Nothing Informal about It: Participatory Arts within the
Cultural Ecology of Silicon Valley. San Jose, CA: Cultural Initiatives Silicon Valley.
Available from: [Accessed: 23 December
Americans for the Arts. (2016). Arts and Economic Prosperity V. Washington, DC: Amer-
icans for the Arts. Available from:
vices/economic_impact/iv/reports.asp [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
ArtPlace. (2012a). Vibrancy denitions. Available from:
[Accessed: 23 December 2017. Page no longer available.].
ArtPlace. (2012b). Vibrancy indicators. Available from:
vibrancy-indicators/. [Accessed: 23 December 2017. Page no longer available.].
Ashe Cultural Arts Center. (2017). History and values. Available from:
main/index.php/about-us/history.html. [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Bedoya, R. (2013). Placemaking and the politics of belonging and dis-belonging, Grant-
makers in the Arts Reader, 24(1). Available from:
and-politics-belonging-and-dis-belonging. [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Bedoya, R. (2014). Spatial justice: Rasquachication, race and the city,Creativetime
Reports. Available from:
chication-race-and-the-city/. [Accessed: 23rd December 2017].
Blumgart, J. (2015). In defense of rent control,Pacic Standard, April 1. Available from: [Accessed: 23 Decem-
ber 2017].
Borstal, J. and Korza, P. (2017). Aesthetic Perspectives: Attributes of Excellence in Arts for
Change. Washington, DC: Animating Democracy. Available from: www.animatingdemoc [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Brown, A. (2012). All the worlds a stage: Venues and settings, and the role they play in
shaping patterns of arts participation,GIA Reader, 23(2), Summer. Available from: www. [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Brown, A. and Novak, J. (2007). Assessing the Intrinsic Benets of a Live Performance.
WolfBrown. January. Available from:
FinalVersionFullReport.pdf [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Brown, A. and Novak-Leonard, J. (2011). Getting in on the Act: How Arts Groups are
Creating Opportunities for Active Participation. San Francisco: The James Irvine
Foundation. Available from:
on-the-act-2011OCT19.pdf [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Cardenas, E. (2016). A snapshot of creative placemaking in higher education[online] in
Alliance for the Arts in Academia. Available from: [Accessed: 23
December 2017].
Chapple, K. and Jacobus, R. (2009). Retail trade as a route to neighborhood revitalization,
in Pindus, N., Wial, H., Wolman, H., and Bowen, J. (eds.), Urban and Regional Policy
and Its Effects, Volume II. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution-Urban Institute.
Davis, B. (2013). Are artists to blame for gentrication? Or would SoHo, Chelsea and
Williamsburg have gentried without them?,Slate, October 15. Available from: www.
would_soho_chelsea_and_bushwick.html. [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Deutsche, R. and Ryan, C. G. (1984). The ne art of gentrication, October, 31.
Feagin, J. (2013). The White Racial Frame (2nd ed). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.
Frank, T. (2013). Dead end on shakinstreet, The Bafer, 22. Available from: www. [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Gadwa, A. (2010). How Artist Space Matters: Impacts and Insights from Artspace Projects
Developments. Minneapolis:. Metris Arts Consulting.
Gadwa, A. and Muessig, A. (2011). How Artist Space Matters II: The Riverside, Tashiro
Kaplan and Insights from Five Artspace Case Studies and Four Cities. Minneapolis:
Artspace Projects and Metris Arts Consulting.
Gadwa Nicodemus, A. (2013b). Fuzzy vibrancy: Creative placemaking as ascendant U. S.
cultural policy,Cultural Trends,34.
Gadwa Nicodemus, A., Engh, R., and Walker, C. (2017). Not Just Murals: Artists as
Leaders in Community Development. Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Fall 2017.
Greenstein, R. and Sungu-Eryilmaz, Y. (2007a). Community land trusts: Solution for
permanently affordable housing,Land Lines Magazine, January: 813. Available from:
[Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Greenstein, R. and Sungu-Eryilmaz, Y. (2007b). A National Study of Community Land
Trusts. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. July. Available from: www.
[Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Gross, J. (2005). Community Benets Agreements: Making Development Projects Accoun-
table. Washington, DC: Good Jobs First and the Partnership for Working Families.
Available from:
[Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Ivey, B. (2008). Arts, Inc: How Greed and Neglect Have Destroyed Our Cultural Rights.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jackson, M. R., Kabwasa-Green, F. and Herranz, J.. (2006). Cultural Vitality in Commu-
nities: Interpretation and Indicators. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. December.
Available from: [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Killacky, J. (2011). Regrets of a former arts funder;inBlue Avocado, June 23. Available
from: [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Killacky, J. (2014). Blood sacricein American Theatre Magazine, January. Available from: [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Kreidler, J. (1996). Leverage lost: The nonprot arts in the post-ford erain In Motion
Magazine. Available from: [Accessed: 23
December 2017].
Lee, S., Linett, P., Baltazar, N., and Woronkowicz, J. (2016). Setting the Stage for Community
Change: Reecting on Creative Placemaking Outcomes. Mortimer & Mimi Levitt Founda-
tion. Available from: [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Lipsitz, G. (2015). How Racism Takes Place. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lord, C. (ed). (2012). Counting New Beans: Intrinsic Impact and the Value of Art. San
Francisco: Theatre Bay Area.
Marcello, D. (2007). Community benet agreements: New vehicle for investment in
Americas neighborhoods,Urban Lawyer 39(3).
Markusen, A. (2003). Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: The case for rigor
and policy relevance in critical regional studies,Regional Studies 37(6/7).
Markusen, A. (2006). Urban development and the politics of a creative class: Evidence
from the study of artists,Environment and Planning A 38(10).
Markusen, A. (2012). Why creative placemaking indicators wont track creative placemak-
ing success,Createquity, November 9. Available from:
html. [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Markusen, A. (2013). Fuzzy concepts, proxy data: Why indicators wont track creative
placemaking success,International Journal of Urban Sciences 17(3).
Markusen, A. (2014). Creative placemaking: Partnering with arts and culture to animate
cities,Pilsen 2015. Prague: Aspen Institute, December.
Markusen, A. and Bedoya, R. (2017). Race, and Placekeeping: A Reframing of the
Gentrication Debate, Working paper, Project on Regional and Industrial Economics,
University of Minnesota.
Markusen, A. and Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative Placemaking. Washington, DC: Mayors
Institute on City Design and the National Endowment for the Arts. October. Available
from: [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Markusen, A. and Gadwa Nicodemus, A. (2013). Spatial divisions of labor: How key
worker proles vary for the same industry in different regions, in McCann, P., Hewings,
G., and Giarattani, F. (eds.), Handbook of Economic Geography and Industry Studies.
London: Edward Elgar.
Markusen, A. and Gadwa Nicodemus, A. (2015). City creative industry strategies: Unique
American cases,Aspen Review Central Europe,4.
Markusen, A. and Johnson, A. (2006). ArtistsCenters: Evolution and Impact on Careers,
Neighborhoods and Economies. Minneapolis: Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs,
University of Minnesota, February. Available from:
PRIEpublications.html. [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Markusen, A., Gadwa, A., Barbour, E., and Beyers, W. (2011). Californias Arts and
Cultural Ecology. San Francisco, CA: The James Irvine Foundation, September.
Markusen, A., Wassall, G., DeNatale, D., and Cohen, R. (2008). Dening the creative
economy: Industry and occupational approaches,Economic Development Quarterly
Matthews, L. (2005). The ties that bind: A community-based art project in Silicon Valley,
in Atlas, C., and Korza, P. (eds.), Critical Perspectives: Writing on Art and Civic
Dialogue. Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts.
McCarthy, K., Heneghan Ondaatje, E., Zakaras, L., and Brooks, A. (2004). Gifts of the
Muse: Reframing the Debate about the Benets of the Arts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. Available from: [Accessed: 23
December 2017].
National Endowment for the Arts. (2012). Creative placemaking. November 13. Available
f557702a7b46bca&tab=core&_cview=1. [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
National Endowment for the Arts. (2013). NEA guide to the US arts and cultural production
satellite account.
satellite-account. [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Novak-Leonard, J. and Brown, A. (2011). Beyond Attendance: A Multi-Modal Understanding
of Arts Participation. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, February.
Sarmiento, C. (2014). Strategies of Fire and ICE: Immigration, Cultural Planning and
Resistance. Santa Ana: University of California Irvine doctoral dissertation.
Schumacher, C., Ingersoll, K., Nzinga, F., and Moss, I. D. (2016). Making sense of cultural
equity: When visions of a better future diverge, how do we choose a path forward?in
Createquity. Available from:
equity/. [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Schupbach, J. (2012). Creative PlacemakingTwo Years and Counting! Washington, DC:
National Endowment for the Arts. Available from:
[Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Sidford, H. (2011). Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change: High Impact Strategies for
Philanthropy. Washington, DC: National Center for Responsible Philanthropy. October.
Available from: [Accessed: 23 December
Stern, M. and Seifert, S. (1998). Community Revitalization and the Arts in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Social Impact of the Arts Project. Available
from: [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Stern, M. and Seifert, S. (2007). Cultivating NaturalCultural Districts. Philadelphia: The
Reinvestment Fund. Available from: [Accessed: 23 December
Stern, M. and Seifert, S. (2008). From Creative Economy to Creative Society. Philadelphia:
The Reinvestment Fund. Available from: [Accessed: 23
December 2017].
Tebes, J., Matlin, S., Hunter, B., Thompson, A., Prince, D., and Mohatt, N. (2015). Porch
Light Program: Final Evaluation Report. New Haven: Yale University, School of
Medicine. Available from:
[Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Walker, A. (1983). In Search of Our MothersGardens. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
Zukin, S. (1987). Gentrication: Culture and capital in the urban core,Annual Review of
Sociology, 13.
Abbas, A. (2002). Cosmopolitan de-scriptions: Shanghai and Hong Kong, in Brecken-
ridge, C., Pollock, S., Bhabha, H., and Chakrabarty, D. (eds), Cosmopolitanism. Durham,
NC: Duke.
Bell, D. (2015). Cottage economy, in Oakley, K. and OConnor, J. (eds), The Routledge
Companion to the Cultural Industries. London: Routledge.
Bond, P., DeSilvey, C., and Ryan, J. (2013). Visible Mending: Everyday Repairs in the South
West. Axminster: Uniformbooks.
Burgess, J. (2014). All your Chocolate Rain are belong to us? Viral video, you tube and the
dynamics of participatory culture, in Papastergiadis, N. and Lynn, V. (eds), Art in the
Global Present. Sydney: UTSe Press
Carr, C. and Gibson, C. (2016). Geographies of making: Rethinking materials and skills for
volatile futures,Progress in Human Geography, 40(3).
Cho, R., Liu, J., and Ho, M. (2018). What are the concerns? looking back on 15 years of
research in cultural and creative industries,International Journal of Cultural Policy, 24(1).
Delyser, D. and Greenstein, P. (2018) Relighting the Castle Argyle: Remaking, restoration
and the biography of an immobile thing, in L. Price and H. Hawkins (eds.) Geographies
of Making/Making Geographies: Embodiment, Matter and Practice. London: Routledge.
Diouf, M. and Rendall, S. (2000). The Senegalese Murid trade diaspora and the making of a
vernacular cosmopolitanism,Public Culture, 12(3).
Edensor, T. (2018). Moonraking: Making things, place and event, in Price, L. and
Hawkins, H. (eds), Geographies of Making/Making Geographies: Embodiment, Matter
and Practice. London: Routledge.
Edensor, T., Leslie, D., Millington, S., and Rantisi, N. (eds) (2009). Spaces of Vernacular
Creativity: Rethinking the Cultural Economy. London: Routledge.
Edensor, T. and Millington, S. (2009) Christmas light displays and the creative production of
economies of generosity, in Edensor, T., Leslie, D., Millington, S. and Rantisi, N. (eds.).
Spaces of Vernacular Creativity. London: Routledge.
Edensor, T. and Millington, S. (2013). Blackpool illuminations: Revaluing local cultural
production, situated creativity and working-class values,International Journal of Cul-
tural Policy, 19(2).
Escobar, A. (2010). Latin America at a crossroads,Cultural Studies, 24(1).
Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How its Transforming Work,
Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Perseus Books Group.
Florida, R. (2017). The New Urban Crisis: Gentrication, Housing Bubbles, Growing
Inequality, and What We Can Do About It. London: Oneworld Publications.
Gibson, C, Brennan-Horley, C. and Walmsley, J. (2009) Mapping vernacular creativity: The
extent and diversity of rural festivals in Australia, in Edensor, T., Leslie, D., Millington,
S. and Rantisi, N. (eds.). Spaces of Vernacular Creativity. London: Routledge.
Gibson, C. and Warren, A. (2014). Making surfboards: Emergence of a trans-Pacic
cultural industry,The Journal of Pacic History, 49(1).
Gilmore, A. (2013). Cold spots, crap towns and cultural deserts: The role of place and
geography in cultural participation and creative placemaking,Cultural Trends, 22(2).
Gregson, N., Crang, M., Ahamed, F., Akhter, N., and Ferdous, R. (2010). Following things
of rubbish value: End-of-life ships, chock-chockyfurniture and the Bangladeshi middle
class consumer,Geoforum, 41(6).
Hackney, F. (2013). Quiet activism and the new amateur: The power of home and hobby
crafts,Design and Culture: The Journal of the Design Studies Forum, 5(2).
Hallam, E. and Ingold, T. (2007). Creativity and cultural improvisation: An introduction,
in Hallam, E. and Ingold, T. (eds), Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. London:
Hargreaves, I. and Hartley, J. (eds) (2016). The Creative Citizen Unbound: How Social
Media and DIY Culture Contribute to Democracy, Communities and the Creative
Economy. Bristol: Policy Press.
Hawkins, H. and Price, L. (eds) (2018). Geographies of Making, Craft and Creativity.
London: Routledge.
Hecker, T. (2010). The slum pastoral: Helicopter visuality and Koolhaass Lagos,Space
and Culture, 13(3).
Holmes, H. (2015). Transient craft: Reclaiming the contemporary craft worker,Work,
Employment and Society, 29(3).
Jackson, I. (2002). Politicised territory: Nek Chands Rock Garden in Chandigarh,Global
Built Environment Review, 2(2).
Jakob, D. and Thomas, N. (2017). Firing up craft capital: The renaissance of craft and craft
policy in the United Kingdom,International Journal of Cultural Policy, 23(4).
Landry, C. (2000). The Creative City. A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan.
Lee, J. (2010). Home life: Cultivating a domestic aesthetic,Contemporary Aesthetics,8.
Literat, I. and Glăveanu, V.P. (2016). Same but different? Distributed creativity in the
internet age,Creativity: TheoriesResearch-Applications,3(2).
Lobo, M. (2017). Re-framing the creative city: Fragile friendships and affective art spaces
in Darwin, Australia,Urban Studies. DOI:10.1177/0042098016686510
Lydon, M. and Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical Urbanism: Short-Term Action for Long-Term.
Washington: Change Island Press.
McFarlane, C. (2011). The city as assemblage: Dwelling and urban space,Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(4).
McLean, H. (2017). Hos in the garden: Staging and resisting neoliberal creativity,
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 35(1).
Mehrotra, R. (2008). Negotiating the static and kinetic cities: The emergent urbanism of
Mumbai, in Huyssen, A. (ed), Other Cities, Other Worlds: Urban Imaginaries in a
Globalizing Age. Durham, NC: Duke.
Miles, A. and Ebrey, J. (2017). The village in the city: Participation and cultural value on
the urban periphery,Cultural Trends, 26(1).
Mommaas, H. (2004). Cultural clusters and the post-industrial city: Towards the remapping
of urban cultural policy,Urban Studies, 41(3).
Mould, O. (2014). Tactical urbanism: The new vernacular of the creative city,Geography
Compass, 8(8)
Ocejo, R. (2012). At your service: The meanings and practices of contemporary barten-
ders,European Journal of Cultural Studies, 15(5).
Platt, L. (2017). Crafting place: Womens everyday creativity in placemaking processes,
European Journal of Cultural Studies. DOI:10.1177/1367549417722090.
Potts, T. (2009) Creative destruction and critical creativity: recent episodes in the social life
of gnomes, in Edensor, T., Leslie, D., Millington, S. and Rantisi, N. (eds.). Spaces of
Vernacular Creativity. London: Routledge.
Price, L. (2015). Knitting and the city,Geography Compass, 9(2): 8195.
Rautio, P. (2009). On hanging laundry: The place of beauty in managing everyday life,
Contemporary Aesthetics, 7.
Robinson, J. (2006). The Ordinary City: Between Modernity and Development. London:
Vannini, P. and Taggart, J. (2014). Do-it-yourself or do-it-with? The regenerative life skills
of off-grid home builders,Cultural Geographies, 21(2).
Vásquez, C. and Creel, S. (2017). Conviviality through creativity: Appealing to the reblog
in Tumblr Chat posts,Discourse, Context & Media, 20.
Vich, V. (2004). Popular capitalism and subalternity: Street comedians in Lima,Social
Text, 22(4).
Waitt, G. and Gibson, C. (2013). The spiral gallery: Non-market creativity and belonging in
an Australian country town,Journal of Rural Studies, 30.
Warren, A. and Gibson, C. (2011). Blue-collar creativity: Reframing custom-car culture in
the imperilled industrial city,Environment and Planning A, 43(11).
Wendler, J. (2016). Grassroots experimentation: Alternative learning and innovation in the
Prinzessinnengarten, Berlin, in Evans, J., Karvonen, A., and Raven, R. (eds), The
Experimental City. London: Routledge.
Arts Catalyst. (2017a). About Arts Catalyst [online]. Available from:
content/about-arts-catalyst [Accessed: 5 July 2017].
Arts Catalyst. (2017b). Line in the sand [online]. Available from: http://wrecked.artscatalyst.
org/landing/3 [Accessed: 11 August 2017].
Arts Catalyst. (2017c). Graveyard of Lost Species [online]. Available from http://wrecked. [Accessed: 12 August 2017].
Arts Catalyst. (2017d). Talking Dirty: Tongue First! [online]. Available from www.tongue [Accessed: 20 October 2017].
Arts Catalyst. (2017e). Citizen Science in the Thames Estuary. [online]. Available from [Accessed: 20 October 2017].
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital, in Richardson, J. (ed.). Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood.
Courage, C. (2013). The global phenomenon of tactical urbanism as an indicator of new
forms of citizenship,Engage in the Visual Arts, 32.
Courage, C. (2017a). Art practice, process, and new urbanism in Dublin: Art Tunnel
Smitheld and social practice placemaking in the Irish capital,Irish Journal of Arts
Management and Cultural Policy,4.
Courage, C. (2017b). Arts in Place: The Arts, the Urban and Social Practice. Abingdon:
De Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Rendall, S., London:
University of California Press.
Hawkins, H. (2013). Geography and art: An expanding eld site, the body and practice,
Progress in Human Geography, 37(1).
Hawkins, H. (2016). Creativity. London: Routledge.
Idea 13 Southend. (2017). Idea13 TV: Wrecked on the Intertidal Zone, Graham Harwood
(Yoha), Fran Gallardo, and Claudia Lustra [online]. Available from
watch?v=T5DJPqsImvs [Accessed: 5 July 2017].
Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2001). SPA Description: Thames Estuary and
Marshes [online]. Available from [Accessed: 17 July
Jordan, C. (2017). Joseph Beuys and Social Sculpture in the United States. Ph.D. thesis,
City University of New York.
Kwon, M. (2004). One Place after Another: Site-Specic Art and Locational Identity.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on Cities. Trans. and ed. by Kofman, E. and Lebas, E. Oxford:
Lichtenstein, R. (2016). Estuary: Out from London to the Sea. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Markusen, A. and Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative Placemaking. Washington, DC: Mayors
Institute on City Design and the National Endowment for the Arts [October 2010].
Available from [Accessed:
7 July 2017].
McGonagle, D. (2010). Passive to active citizenship: A role for the arts. Bologna in context
conference, 24 October 2010, The Honourable Society of Kings Inn, Dublin.
McGonagle, D. (2011). An otherproposition situating reciprocal practice, in Parry, B.,
Tahir, M., and Medlyn, S. (eds.), Cultural Hijack: Rethinking Intervention. Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press.
McKeown, A. (2015). Deeper, slower, richer: A slow intervention towards resilient places,
Edge Condition,5.
Nizinskyj, P. (2015). New Heathrow runway good for Southendin Basildon, Canvey &
Southend Echo, [online], 3rd July 2015. Available from:
13367946.New_Heathrow_runway__good_for_Southend_/ [Accessed 23 October 2017].
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. (2017). Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project
[online]. Available from
casework/cases/wallasea-island [Accessed: 17 July 2017].
Silberberg, S., Lorah, K., Disbrow, R, Muessig, A., and Naparstek, A. (2013). Places in the
Making: How Placemaking Builds Places and Communities. White Paper. Cambridge,
MA: MIT, Department of Urban Studies and Planning. Available from
[Accessed: 17 July 2017].
UK government. (2016). Thames Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area: Site Informa-
tion (Draft) [online]. Available from
estuary-and-marshesspa-site-information-draft [Accessed: 17 July 2017].
Walker, D. D. (2015). Atomic Age Rodents: In search of the rst animals of the Anthro-
pocene,Society and Space [online], 20th August 2015. Available from: http://societyand [Accessed 17 July 2017].
Walker, D. D. (2017). Experimental Geographies, Artists, and Institutions: Spaces of and
Practices for Knowing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Exeter.
Worden, S. (2015). The Earth sciences and creative practice: Entering the Anthropocene,
in Harrison, D. (ed.). Handbook of Research on Digital Media and Creative Technologies.
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
YoHa. (2015). Wrecked on the Intertidal Zone [online]. Available from
wrecked_ [Accessed: 5 July 2017].
Zebracki, M. and Palmer, J. (eds.). (2018). Public Art Encounters: Art, Space and Identity.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Amin, A. (2006). Collective culture and urban public spacein: Inclusive Cities: Chal-
lenges of Urban Diversity. Woodrow Wilson International the Center for Scholars, the
Development Bank of Southern Africa and the CCCB.
Boyer, M. C. (1987). Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning.
Cambridge: MIT.
Courage, C. (2017). Arts in Place: The Arts, the Urban and Social Practice. London:
Drew, P. (2015). The rise and rise of Barangaroo,ArchitectureAU. Available at: http:// [Accessed: 7 August 2017].
Flannery, T. (2017). In praise of sandstone,New York Review of Books. New York.
Available at: [Accessed:
7 August 2017].
Hasham, N. and McKenny, L. (2014). Sydney mayor Clover Moore slams NSW state
housing sell-off,Sydney Morning Herald, 19 March. Available at
html [Accessed: 27 August 2017].
Legge, K. (2015). How Paul Keating saved Barangaroo headland park on Sydney Harbour,
The Australian, 3rd October 2015. Available at:
bour/news-story/d810af02b77275ad1fcc08e681a81d40 [Accessed: 7 August 2017].
Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and Cities. Washington: Island Press.
Place Leaders. 2017. Big Ideas in Place: Conference 2017. Available at: www.theconnec [Accessed: 25 May 2018].
Reinmuth, G. (2012). Barangaroo: The loss of trust?,The Conversation, 20 November.
Available at: [Accessed:
19 August 2017].
Silbey, D. (1995). Geographies of Exclusion. London: Routledge.
Weller, R. (2010) Barangaroo Can it work?,ArchitectureAU. Available at http://architec [Accessed: 19 August 2017].
Wilbur, S. (2015). Its about Time: Creative placemaking and performance analytics,
Performance Research 20.
Yates, F. (1966). The Art of Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zukin, S. (2013). Whose culture? Whose city?in: Lin JaM, C. (ed) The Urban Sociology
Reader. Abingdon: Routledge.
Alexander, C. (1965). A city is not a tree,Architectural Forum, 22(1).
Cathcart-Keays, A. (2014). Can Urban Vision turn Mumbais unloved plots into precious
spaces?,The Guardian, 18th November. Available at
nov/18/can-urban-vision-turn-mumbais-unloved-plots-into-precious-spaces [Accessed:
25 February 2018].
CitiSpace-Citizens Forum for Protection of Public Spaces. (2010). Breathing Space: A Fact
File of 600 Reserved Public Open Spaces in Greater Mumbai. Mumbai: CitiSpace.
Doshi, R. (2014). Citizens to be roped in for revamping public spaces in Mumbai,
Hindustan Times, 20th November. Available at:
LeVyN.html [Accessed: 25 February 2018].
Dwivedi, S. and Mehrotra, R. (2001). Bombay: The Cities Within. Mumbai: Eminence
Designs Pvt. Ltd.
Gaikwad, S. (2016). Developers will get to run townships in Maharashtra for 10 years,
Hindustan Times. [Online] Available at:
Co88LgbN.html [Accessed: 23 October 2017].
Golledge, R. G. and Rushton, G. (1976). Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior: Geographic
Essays on the Analysis of Preferences and Perceptions. Columbus: Ohio State University
Harvey, D. (2003). The right to the city,International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 27(4). (2017). Borivali East Market Overview. [Online]. Available at: https://hous [Accessed: 1 September 2017].
Iese, B. S. (2013). Quality of life: Everyone wants it, but what is it?,Forbes. [Online]
Available at:
but-what-is-it/\l2c8a2b3c635d [Accessed: 23 October 2017].
Jamwal, N. (2006). Mumbai may lose its open spaces,Down To Earth. [Online] Available
at: [Accessed:
27 July 2015].
Jog, S. (2015). No new taxes in BMCs Rs 33,514.15 cr budget for 2015-16,Business
Standard Economy. [Online] Available at:
news-115020401359_1.html [Accessed: 3 June 2015].
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited. (2016). Schedule F - Monthly toll
collection statement for Mumbai Entry points, Corridor: Western Express Highway.
[Online]. Available at:
20Data%201-8-2016%20to%205-8-2016.pdf. [Accessed: 11 September 2017].
Partners for Livable Communities. What Is Livability? [Online]. Available at: http://livable.
org/about-us/what-is-livability. [Accessed: 25 June 2015].
Philip Oswalt, K. O. M. (2013). Urban Catalyst-The Power of Temporary Use. Berlin: DOM
Project for Public Spaces. (2011). The lighter, quicker, cheaper transformation of public
spaces. [Online]. Available at:
[Accessed: 1 June 2017].
Shanker, S. (2008). Mumbai pedestrians can walk safe in the skyin The Hindu Business
Line. [Online] Available at:
world/article1114744.ece [Accessed: 15 July 2017].
Silberg, S., Lorah, K., Disbrow, R., Muessig, A., and Naparstak, A. (2013). Places in the
Making: How Placemaking Builds Places and Communities. Boston: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Thakur, V. K. (1981). Urbanisation in Ancient India. Delhi: Abhinav Publications.
The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2012). Best cities ranking and report: A special report
from the Economic Intelligence Unitin The Economist. Available at:
public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=BestCity2012. [Accessed: 6 July 2015].
Tindall, G. (1992). City of Gold: The Biography of Bombay. New Delhi: Penguin Group.
Tucker, A. (2012). How does the brain process art?in Smithsonian Magazine. [Online]
Available at:
80541420. [Accessed: 6 July 2017].
UN Habitat for a Better Future. (2015). Urban Data. [Online] Available at: http://urbandata.
tion_cities,hiv_prevalence_15_to_49_year. [Accessed: 23 October 2017].
Zeki, S. (1999). Art and the brain,Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(67).
Beuys, J. (1990). I am searching for eld character (1973)in Kuoni, C. (ed.) Energy Plan
for the Western Man: Joseph Beuys in America, Writings by and Interviews with the
Artist. New York, NY: Four Walls Eight Windows, 21.
Burnham, J. (1968). Systems Esthetics,Artforum 7(1), September.
Lippard, L. (1980). Sweeping Exchanges: The Contribution of Feminism to the Art of the
1970sin Art Journal, Fall/Winter, 362365.
Lippard, L. (2016). Where We Are, unpublished interview with Richard Saxton in
conjunction with Where We Are, a semester-long symposium organized by Lucy R.
Lippard at The University of Wyoming.
M12 and Rothlisberger, M. (2018). Star Route 1. Last Chance, CO, and Rotterdam, NL: Last
Chance Press and Jap Sam Books.
Markusen, A. and Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative Placemaking, Washington, DC: National
Endowment for the Arts. Available from: [Accessed on: December 31,
Marx, L. (1964). The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Idea in America.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Morris, R. (1980). Notes on Art as/and Land Reclamation,October, Spring 1980.
Oldenburg, C. (1961). I am for...,Environments, Situations, Spaces, exhibition catalogue,
25 May23 June, Martha Jackson Gallery, New York.
Robert, S. and Flam, J. (1996). A tour of the monuments of Passaic, New Jerseyin Robert
Smithson: The Collected Writings. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Blyth, M. (2001). The transformation of the Swedish Model: Economic ideas, distributional
conict, and institutional change,World Politics, 54.
dOvidio, M. and Rodríguez Morato, A. (2017). Introduction to Special Issue: Against the
creative city: Activism in the creative city: When cultural workers ght against creative
city policy,City, Culture and Society,8.
Doel, M. and Hubbard, P. (2002). Taking world cities literally: Marketing the city in a
global space of ows,City,6.
Duxbury, N., Hosagrahar, J., and Pascual, J. (2016). Why must culture be at the heart of
sustainable urban development?(Agenda 21 for culture Committee on Culture of
United Cities and Local Governments). Available from:
default/les/les/documents/en/culture_sd_cities_web.pdf. [Accessed: 6 September
European Commission. (2012). Promoting cultural and creative sectors for growth and jobs
in the EU. Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions. /* COM/2012/0537 nal */
Florida, R. L. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How Its Transforming Work,
Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Frenander, A. (2001). Svensk kulturpolitik under 1900-talet,TijdSchrift Voor Skandina-
vistiek, 22.
GDNE. (2010). Gothenburg Development North East [project application to the European
Regional Development Fund], City of Gothenburg.
Greenspan, A. (2005). Greenspan on Schumpeterscreative destruction”’, extract from:
Testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, July 21, 2005. Available from: https:// [Accessed: 6 September 2017].
Grodach, C. (2017). Urban cultural policy and creative city making,Cities, 68.
Grodach, C., OConnor, J., and Gibson, C. (2017). Manufacturing and cultural production:
Towards a progressive policy agenda for the cultural economy,City, Culture and Society,
Harvey, D. (1982). The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2011). The Enigma of Capital and the Crisis of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hillman-Chartrand, H. and McCaughey, C. (1989). The arms length principle and the arts,
in Cummings, M. C. and Davidson-Schuster, J. M. D. (eds), Whos to Pay for the Arts?
New York: American Council of the Arts.
Hutton, T. A. (2008). The New Economy of the Inner City: Restructuring, Regeneration and
Dislocation in the Twenty-First-Century Metropolis. New York: Routledge.
Lacan, J. (1977). The mirror stage as formative of the function of the I as revealed in
psychoanalytic experience, in Lacan, J., Écrits: A Selection. London: Tavistock.
Landzelius, M. (2012). Real estate ownership concentration and urban governance,in
Larsson, B., Letell, M., and Thörn, H. (eds), Transformations of the Swedish Welfare
State. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Larsson, B., Letell, M., and Thörn, H. (eds) (2012a), Transformations of the Swedish
Welfare State, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Larsson, B., Letell, M., and Thörn, H. (2012b). Transformations of the Swedish welfare
state: Social engineering, governance and governmentality, in Larsson, B., Letell, M.,
and Thörn, H. (eds), Transformations of the Swedish Welfare State. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1994). Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage Publications.
Lindeborg, L. and Lindkvist, L. (2013). The Value of Arts and Culture for Regional
Development: A Scandinavian Perspective. London: Routledge.
Miller, P. and Rose, N. (2008). Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and
Personal Life. Cambridge: Polity.
Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine,The American Journal of Sociology, 82.
OConnor, J. (2016). After the creative industries: cultural policy in crisis,Law, Justice &
Global Development,1.
Pagrotsky et al. (2009). Motion till riksdagen 2009/10: Kr1 av Leif Pagrotsky m.. (s), the
Swedish Parliament, Stockholm.
Peterson, M. (2012). Pathways of the welfare state: Growth and democracy, in Larsson, B.,
Letell, M., and Thörn, H. (eds), Transformations of the Swedish Welfare State. Basing-
stoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
PwC. (2013). Utveckling Nordost Sveriges största stadsutvecklingsprojekt [project evalua-
tion report to the European Regonal Development Fund], Tillväxtverket, Stockholm.
Available from: [Accessed: 23
October 3 2017].
Rhodes, R. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government,Political
Studies, XLIV.
Swedish Cabinet. (1974). Proposition 1974:28: Kungl. Maj:ts proposition Angående Den
Statliga Kulturpolitiken, Stockholm.
Swedish Cabinet. (1996). Regeringens proposition 1996/97:3: Kulturpolitik, Stockholm.
Swedish Cabinet. (2009). Regeringens proposition 2009/10:3: Tid för kultur, Stockholm.
Swedish Cabinet. (2016). Jämställdhetsmyndigheten placeras i Göteborg(press release
December 15, 2016). Available from:
jamstalldhetsmyndigheten-placeras-i-goteborg/ [Accessed: 2 January 2018].
Swedish Cabinet. (2017). Regeringen positiv till myndighet i Angered(press release May
15, 2017). Available from:
positiv-till-myndighet-i-angered/ [Accessed: 2 January 2018].
Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus Face of
governance beyond-the-state,Urban Studies, 42.
Uitermark, J. (2005). The genesis and evolution of urban policy: A confrontation of
regulationist and governmentality approaches,Political Geography, 24.
UNESCO. (2013). Creative Economy Report 2013, United Nations, New York.
Welzel, C. (2013). Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
World Values Survey. (2016). Findings and insights: Inglehart-Welzel cultural map.
Available from:
[Accessed: 25 March 2016].
Lydon, M., Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical Urbanism. Washington: Island Press.
Arlt, P., Haydn, F., and Temel, R. (2006). Temporary Urban Spaces. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Bishop, C. (2005). Art of the Encounter: Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics,Circa,
Bourriaud, N. (2010). Relational Aesthetics. Dijon: Les Presses du Reel.
Brown, K. (2013). Agitprop in Soviet Russia,Constructing the Past, 14(1). Available at: [Accessed: 23 January 2018].
Chomsky, N. and Herman, E. (1988). Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books.
De Certeau, M. (2011). Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Debord, G. (1970). The Society of the Spectacle. Detroit: Black & Red.
Driver, S. and Martell, L. (1997). New Labours Communitarianisms,Critical Social
Policy, 17(52).
Flood, C. and Grindon, G. (2017). Disobedient Object. London: Victoria and Albert
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. London:
Hamish Hamilton.
Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (n.d.). Situated Learning.
Mathews, S. (2005). The Fun Palace: Cedric Prices Experiment in Architecture and
Technology,Technoetic Arts, 3(2).
Mouffe, C. (1992). Citizenship and Political Identity,October, 61, 28.
Mouffe, C., Deutsche, R., Joseph, B., and Keenan, T. (2001). Every Form of Art Has a
Political Dimension,Grey Room,2.
Pipes, R. (1996). A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. New York: Vintage Books.
Shubert, H. (2005). Cedric Prices Fun Palace as Public Space.Available at: http:// Price Fun Palace as
Public Space.pdf [Accessed: 30 May 2018].
Spiegel, A. (2015). Study Shows that People are Getting Even More Obsessed with Pop-up
Restaurant,Hufngton Post, 10 April. Available at:
pop-up-restaurants-study- people-more-obsessed_n_7035394.html [Accessed: 30 May 2018].
Susen, S. (2011). Critical notes on Habermass theory of the public sphere,Sociological
Analysis, 5(1).
Aron, H., 2016. Boyle Heights Activists Demand That All Art Galleries Get the Hell Out of
Their Neighborhood. [Online] Available at:
[Accessed: 11 March 2017].
Artscape, 2017. Approaches to Creative Placemaking. [Online] Available at: www.artscape [Accessed: 9
February 2017].
Balfron Social Club, 2015. Brutalism [redacted] Social Art Practice and You. [Online]
Available at:
social-art-practice-and-you [Accessed: 13 April 2015].
Barragan, B., 2016. Boyle Heights Activists Want to Banish All Art Galleries. [Online]
Available at:
cation[Accessed: 11 March 2017].
BAVO, 2006. Plea for an uncreative city. [Online] Available at:
156[Accessed: 6 February 2016].
Bedoya, R., 2013. Placemaking and the politics of belonging and dis-belonging,GIA
Reader, 24(1).
Bennett, J., 2014. Creative placemaking in community planning and development: An
introduction to Artplace America,Community Investment Development Review, 10(2).
Boyle Heights Alliance Against Artwashing and Displacement, 2017. Boyle Heights
Alliance Against Artwashing and Displacement: The Short History of a Long Struggle.
[Online] Available at:
the-short-history-of-a-long-struggle [Accessed: 11 March 2017].
Congress for New Urbanism, 2017. What is New Urbanism? [Online] Available at: www. [Accessed: 22 March 2017].
Courage, C., 2017. Arts in Place: The Arts, the Urban and Social Practice. London:
Davoudi, S. and Madanipour, A., 2013. Localism and neo-liberal governmentality,Town
Planning Review, 84(5).
De Certeau, M., 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California
Ecorys, 2017. Creative People and Places End of Year 3 Evaluation Report: Impact,
Outcomes and the Future at the End of Year 3, London: Arts Council England.
Evans, M., 2015. Artwash: Big Oil and the Arts. London: Pluto Press.
Florida, R., 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class And How It Is Transforming Leisure,
Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
Florida, R., 2017. The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities are Increasing Inequality,
Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class - and What We Can Do about It.
New York: Basic Books.
Focus E15, 2017. Focus E15: Social Housing not Social Cleansing. [Online] Available at: [Accessed: 26 April 2017].
Gadwa Nicodemus, A., 2012. Creative Placemaking 2.0. [Online] Available at: www.giarts.
org/article/creative-placemaking-20 [Accessed: 2 April 2014].
Gadwa Nicodemus, A., 2013. Fuzzy vibrancy: Creative placemaking as ascendant US
cultural policy,Cultural Trends, 22(34).
Graham, J. and Vass, N., 2014. Intervention/Art P|Art|Icipate - Kultur aktiv gestalten,5.
Groys, B., 2008. Art Power. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Hancox, D., 2014. Fuck Your Pop-Up Shops. [Online] Available at:
en_uk/read/shipping-container-elephant-park-dan-hancox [Accessed: 18 September
Harvey, D., 2008. The right to the city,New Left Review, September-October, 53.
Harvey, D., 2010. The right to the city: From capital surplus to accumulation by disposses-
sionin Banerjee-Guha, S., ed. Accumulation by Dispossession: Transformative Cities in
the New Global Order. New Delhi: Sage.
Harvey, D., 2012. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London:
Hess, D. J., 2009. Localist Movements in a Global Economy: Sustainability, Justice, and
Urban Development in the United States. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT
Holmes, B., 2012. Eventwork: The fourfold matrix of contemporary social movementsin
Thompson, N., ed. Living as Form: Socially Engaged Art from 1991-2011. Cambridge
Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press
Hopkins, R., 2015. Isabelle Frémeaux, John Jordan and the rise of the insurrectionary
imagination. [Online] Available at:
04/isabelle-fr-meaux-john-jordan-and-rise-insurrectionary-imagination [Accessed: 7
October 2015].
Jackson, M. R., 2015. How Creative Placemaking Plays a Role in the Creative Economy.
[Online] Available at:
role-in-the-creative-economy [Accessed: 24 November 2017].
Josten, S. D., 2013. Middle-class consensus, social capital and the fundamental causes of
economic growth and development,Journal of Economic Development, 38(1).
Keeley, B., 2007. Human Capital: How What You Know Shapes Your Life. Paris: OECD
Kelly, O., 1984. Community, Art and the State: Storming the Citadels. London: Comedia.
Landesman, R., 2009. Keynote Speech GIA Conference, Navigating the Art of Change.
Brooklyn NY, Grantmakers in the Arts.
Landry, C. and Bianchini, F., 1995. The Creative City. London: Demos.
Lees, L., 2014. The newmiddle class, lifestyle and the newgentried city,in
Paddison, R. and McCann, E., eds. Cities and Social Change: Encounters with Con-
temporary Urbanism. London: SAGE.
Lefebvre, H., 1968. Le Droit à la ville. Paris: Éditions Anthropos.
Lefebvre, H., 2000. Everyday Life in the Modern World. London: Athlone.
Madden, D., 2013. Gentrication doesnt trickle down to help everyone. [Online] Available
sance [Accessed: 20 December 2015].
Malanga, S., 2004. The curse of the creative class,City Journal, Winter.
Markusen, A. and Gadwa, A., 2010a. Creative Placemaking. Washington: National Endow-
ment for the Arts.
Markusen, A. and Gadwa, A., 2010b. Creative Placemaking: Executive Summary. Washing-
ton: National Endowment for the Arts.
Mathews, V., 2010. Aestheticizing space: Art, gentrication and the city,Geography
Compass, 6(4).
Mayer, M., 2003. The onward sweep of social capital: Causes and consequences for
understanding cities, communities and urban movements,International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 27(1)
Mayer, M., 2007. Contesting the neoliberalization of urban governance, in Leitner, H.,
Peck, J., and Sheppard, E. S., eds. Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers. New York:
The Guildford Press.
McKeown, A., 2016. Creative Placemaking: How to Embed Arts-Led Processes within
Cultural Regeneration? [Online] Available at:
making-how-to-embed-arts-led-processes-within-cultural-regeneration[Accessed: 30
December 2017].
Moss, I. D., 2012. Creative Placemaking Has an Outcomes Problem. [Online] Available at:
[Accessed: 30 December 2017].
Nikitin, C., 2013. All Placemaking Is Creative: How a Shared Focus on Place Builds
Vibrant Destinations. [Online] Available at:
munity-creativity-how-a-shared-focus-on-place-builds-vibrant-destinations[Accessed: 14
February 2017].
OSullivan, F., 2014. The Pernicious Realities of Artwashing. [Online] Available at: www.[Accessed:
26 September 2016].
Pantoja, E., 2002. Qualitative analysis of social capital: The case of community develop-
ment in coal mining areas in Orissa, India, in Grootaert, C. and Van Bastelaer, T., eds.
Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Multidisciplinary Tool for Practitioners.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Peck, J., 2005. Struggling with the Creative Class,International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 29(4).
Peck, J., 2009 [2007]. The creativity x,Variant, Spring, 34.
Peck, J. and Tickell, A., 2007. Conceptualizing neoliberalism, thinking Thatcherism,in
Leitner, H., Peck, J., and Sheppard, E. S., eds. Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban
Frontiers. New York: The Guildford Press.
Pinder, D., 2015 [2013]. Reconstituting the possible: Lefebvre, utopia and the urban
question,International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(1).
Pritchard, S., 2017. Artists Against Artwashing: Anti-Gentrication and the Intangible Rise
of the Social Capital Artist. [Online] Available at:
artistsagainstartwashing [Accessed: 7 October 2017].
Project for Public Spaces, 2012. How Small ChangeLeads to Big Change: Social Capital
and Healthy Places. [Online]. Available at:
to-big-change-social-capital-and-healthy-places [Accessed: 10 February 2017].
Robinson, M., 2016. Faster, but Slower Slower, but Faster: Creative People and Places
Learning 2016, Stockton-on-Tees: Thinking Practice (for Creative People and Places).
[Online]. Available at:
%20Slower_0.pdf [Accessed: 27 May 2018].
Schulkind, R., 2017. Should we Blame Art for Brixtons Gentrication? [Online] Available
gentrication [Accessed: 30 December 2017].
Schumerth, C., 2015. Indianapolis workshops combine placemaking, social practice.
[Online] Available at: [Accessed: 9 November 2015].
Smith, N., 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrication and the Revanchist City. London:
Smith, N., 2002. New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrication as global urban strategy,
Antipode, 34(3).
Southwark Notes, 2017. Who Are We? [Online] Available at: https://southwarknotes.word[Accessed: 17 January 2017].
Stern, M. J., 2014. Measuring the Outcomes of Creative Placemaking. Washington, DC:
Goethe Institut and EUNIC.
Stromberg, M., 2016. Anti-Gentrication Coalition Calls for Galleries to Leave LAs Boyle
Heights. [Online] Available at:
tion-calls-for-galleries-to-leave-las-boyle-heights [Accessed: 11 March 2017].
The World Bank, 2004. Community Driven Development. [Online]. Available at: www.
te00996A/WEB/OTHER/COMMUNIT.HTMandmdk=21600690 [Accessed: 24 April
Vella-Burrows, T. et al., 2014. Cultural Value and Social Capital: Investigating Social
Capital, Health and Wellbeing Impacts in Three Coastal Towns Undergoing Culture-Led
Regeneration. Folkestone: Sydney De Haan Research Centre for Arts and Health and
Nick Ewbank Associates (for the AHRC Cultural Value Project).
Verson, J., 2007. Why we need cultural activism, in Collective, T. T., ed. Do It Yourself: A
Handbook for Changing Our World. London: Pluto Press.
Vickery, J., 2007. The Emergence of Culture-Led Regeneration: A Policy Concept and Its
Discontents. Warwick: The University of Warwick.
Wilbur, S., 2015. Its about time creative placemaking and performance analytics,
Performance Research, 20(4).
Williams, A., Goodwin, M., and Cloke, P., 2014. Neoliberalism, Big Society, and progres-
sive localism,Environment and Planning, 46.
Winnicott, D. W., 1991 [1971]. Playing and Reality. London and New York: Tavistock/
Zukin, S. and Braslow, L., 2011. The lifecycle of New Yorks creative districts,City,
Culture and Society, 2(3).
Beebeejaun, Y. (eds.) (2016). The Participatory City. Berlin: Jovis Verlag GmbH.
Bishop, C. (2006). The Social Turn: Collaboration and Its Discontents. Artforum, February
tory/Claire%20Bishop/Social-Turn.pdf [Accessed 23 April 2015].
Bishop, C. (2012). Articial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship.
London: Verso.
Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D. (2005). Losing control, keeping desirein Blundell Jones, P.,
Petrescu, D., and Till, J. (eds.) Architecture and Participation. London: Spon Press.
Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D. and Till, J. (eds.) (2005). Architecture and Participation.
London: Spon Press.
Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., and Mayer, M. (eds.) (2012). Cities for People Not for Prot.
London: Routledge.
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds.) (2011). Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed
Governo de Portugal. (2013). Manual de Apoio : Processos de delimitação e de aprovação
de Áreas de Reabilitação Urbana e de Operações de Reabilitação Urbana. Ministério da
Agricultura, do Mar, do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território. www.portaldahabita
poioARU.pdf [Accessed 19 June 2014].
Dürrschmidt, J. (2005). Shrinkage mentalityin Oswald, P. (ed.). Shrinking Cities Vol 1.
International Research. Ostldern-Ruit: Hate Cantz Verlag.
Halberstam, J. (2011). The Queer Art of Failure. London: Duke University Press.
Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New
York: Verso.
Helguera, P. (2011). Education for Socially Engaged Art: A Materials and Techniques
Handbook. New York: Jorge Pinto Books.
Holquist, M. (ed.) (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Lefebvre, H. (2003). The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Markusen, A. and Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative Placemaking: Executive Summary. Washing-
ton: National Endowment for the Arts.
ing-Paper.pdf [Accessed 3 June 2015].
Martinez-Fernandez, C., Audirac, I., Fol, S., Cunningham-Sabot, E. (2012). Shrinking
cities: Urban challenges of globalization,International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, vol.36.2.
x/pdf [Accessed 21 August 2016].
Mauss, M. (2002). The Gift. London: Routledge.
Miessen, M. (2011). The Nightmare of Participation. Berlin: Sternberg.
muf. (2001). This is what we do, a muf manual. London: ellipsis.
Osório, L. (2006). World charter on the right to the cityin Sané, P. and Tibaijuka, A. (ed).
Débats publics internationaux: Politiques Urbaines et Le Droit à la Ville, Unesco. http:// [Accessed 3 June 2015].
Oswald, P. (2005). Shrinking Cities, Vol 1. International Research. Ostldern-Ruit: Hate
Cantz Verlag.
Petrescu, D. (2005). Losing control, keeping desirein Petrescu, D. and Till, J. (eds.)
(2005). Architecture and Participation. London: Spon Press.
Schneider, T. (2013). The paradox of social architecturesin Cupers, K. (ed.). Use Matters:
An Alternative History of Architecture. New York: Routledge.
Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. London: Penguin Books.
Sennett, R. (2013). Together. London: Penguin Books.
SKOR Foundation. (2011). Interview with Marjetica Potrč. Available at:
com/watch?v=B2M0qxHcYfc [Accessed 18 May 2017].
Universidade Lusíada do Porto (2018). Available at:
1ciclo.php?cp=012. [Accessed 21 January 2018].
Universidade do Minho (2018). Available at:
de-Estudos.aspx [Accessed 21 January 2018].
Williams, A. (1981). Portugals illegal housing,Planning Outlook, 23.
Ashley, A. J. (2014). Creating Capacity: Strategic Approaches to Managing Arts, Culture,
and Entertainment Districtsin Americans for the Arts. Washington, DC: National
Cultural Districts Exchange. [Online]. Available from:
Entertainment-Districts.pdf. [Accessed: 2 January 2018].
Bedoya, R. (2013). Placemaking and the Politics of Belonging and Dis-Belonging,Grant-
makers and the Arts Reader, 24: 2021, 32. [Online]. Available from:
article/placemaking-and-politics-belonging-and-dis-belonging. [Accessed: 2 January
Brain, D. (2005). From Good Neighborhoods to Sustainable Cities: Social Science and the
Social Agenda of the New Urbanism,International Regional Science Review, 28(2).
Florida, R., Mellander, C., and Stolarick, K. (2009). Beautiful Places: The Role of
Perceived Aesthetic Beauty in Community Satisfactionin Working Paper Series:
Martin Prosperity Research [Online]. Available from:
articles/Beautiful%20places.pdf. [Accessed: 2 January 2018].
Frasz, A. (2015). Is Beauty a Basic Need and Right?in Helicon. [Online]. Available from: [Accessed: 2 January 2018].
Gadamer, H. G. (1986). The Relevance of the Beautiful and Other Essays. Robert Bernas-
coni (ed.), Nicholas Walker (trans.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gadwa Nicodemus, A. (2013). Fuzzy Vibrancy: Creative Placemaking as Ascendant US
Cultural Policy,Cultural Trends, 3-4.
Harvey, A. and Julian, C. (2015). A Community Right to Beauty: Giving Communities the
Power to Shape, Enhance and Create Beauiful Places, Buildings and Spacesin ResPu-
blica. [Online]. Available from:
07/Right-to-Beauty-Final-1.pdf. [Accessed: 2 January 2018].
Ipsos, M. O. R. I. (2010). People and Places: Public Attitudes to Beauty.[Online].
Available from:
and-places-Public-attitudes-to-beauty.aspx. [Accessed: 2 January 2018].
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage.
Kim, A. M., Yates, C.S., Merrill, E., and Miller, C. (2014). Thriving Cities Endowment
Brief: The BeautifulInstitute for Advanced Studies in Culture, Charlottesville, Virginia.
[Online]. Available from:
ment. [Accessed: 2 January 2018].
Markusen, A. (2014). Creative Cities: A Ten-Year Research Agenda,Journal of Urban
Affairs, 36(S2).
Markusen, A. (2012). Fuzzy Concepts, Proxy Data: Why Indicators Wont Track Creative
Placemaking Successin Createquity. [Online]. Available from:
success/. [Accessed: 2 January 2018].
Meyer, E. K. (2015). Beyond Sustaining BeautyMusings on a Manifesto, in Deming, M.
E. (ed.), Values in Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, Finding Center in
Theory and Practice. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Meyer, E. K. (2008). Sustaining Beauty. The Performance of Appearance A Manifesto in
Three Parts,Journal of Landscape Architecture, Spring.
Nehamas, A. (2007). Only a Promise of Happiness: The Place of Beauty in a World of Art.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (1988). Nature, Functioning and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribu-
tion,Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy (Supplementary Volume), 6.
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.
Stern, M. and Seifert, S. (2009). Civic Engagement and the Arts: Issues of Conceptualiza-
tion and Measurement. Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts.
UN-Habitat. (2016). Habitat III Policy Paper 4 Urban Governance, Capacity and Institu-
tional Development (Feb. 29, 2016). [Online]. Available from:
content/uploads/PU4-HABITAT-III-POLICY-PAPER.pdf. [Accessed: 17 January 2018].
UN-Habitat. (2017). Habitat III - The New Urban Agenda (Oct. 20, 2016). [Online]
Available from: [Accessed: 17
January 2018].
Zuidervaart, L. (2010). Art in Public: Politics, Economics, and a Democratic Culture.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Markusen, A. and Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative Placemaking. [online] Washington, D.C.:
National Endowment for the Arts. Available at:
Placemaking-Paper.pdf [Accessed: 13 November 2017].
Markusen, A. (2012). Fuzzy Concepts, Proxy Data: Why Indicators Wont Track Creative
Placemaking Success,Createquity. Available at:
[Accessed: 13 November 2017].
Moss, I. D. (2012). Creative Placemaking Has an Outcomes Problem,Createquity.
Available at:
blem/ [Accessed: 13 November 2017].
National Endowment for the Arts. (2014a). Art Works for America: Strategic Plan,FY
2014-2018. [online] Washington, D.C. Available at:
NEAStrategicPlan2014-2018.pdf. [Accessed: 13 November 2017].
National Endowment for the Arts. (2014b). Exploring Our Town. Available at: www.arts.
gov/exploring-our-town/ [Accessed: 13 November 2017].
National Endowment for the Arts. (2015). NEA Arts & Livability Indicators: Assessing
Outcomes of Interest to Creative Placemaking Projects. Available at:
[Accessed: 13 November 2017].
National Endowment for the Arts. (2016). How to Do Creative Placemaking. [online]
Washington, DC Available at:
making_Jan2017.pdf [Accessed: 13 November 2017].
National Endowment for the Arts. (2017a). Our Town: Projects that Build Knowledge about
Creative Placemaking Grant Program Description. Available at:
grant-program-description [Accessed: 13 November 2017].
National Endowment for the Arts. (2017b). Our Town: Introduction. Available at: www.arts.
gov/grants-organizations/our-town/introduction. [Accessed: 13 November 2017].
Partnership for Sustainable Communities. (2014). Sustainable Community Indicators Cata-
log. Available at: [Accessed: 13 November
Pierson, J. and Lacey-Moreira, J. (2010). Arts and Livability: The Road to Better Metrics.
[online]. Washington, D.C. Available at:
bility-Whitepaper.pdf [Accessed: 13 November 2017].
The Robert W. Deutsch Foundation. (9 March 2017). GEOLOOM Launch Planned for
Summer 2017. [online]. Baltimore, MD. Available at: https://rwdfoundation.word [Accessed: 1 June
Schupbach, J. and Iyengar, S. (2012). Our View of Creative Placemaking, Two Years In,
Createquity. Available at:
ing-two-years-in/ [Accessed 13 November 2017].
Urban Institute. (2014). The Validating Arts & Livability (VALI) Study: Results and Recom-
mendations. [Online]. Washington, D.C: National Endowment for the Arts. Available at: [Accessed: 13 November 2017].
Alpalhão, L. (2018). Outros Espaços: Apathy and lack of engagement in participatory
processes, this volume.
Barns, S. (2018). Arrivals and departures: Navigating an emotional landscape of belonging
and displacement at Barangaroo in Sydney, Australia, this volume.
Bedoya, R. (2013). Creative Placemaking and the politics of belonging and disbelonging.
Available at:
belonging-and-dis-belonging. [Accessed: 25 March 2018].
Beuys, J. (1972). Social Sculpture [online]. Available at:
social-sculpture [Accessed 30 May 2018].
Courage, C. (2017). Arts in Place: The Arts, the Urban and Social Practice. Abingdon:
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning,Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, Vol. 31, no. 4.
Doherty, C. (2004). The new situationistsin Contemporary Art: From Studio to Situations.
London: Black Dog Publishing Ltd.
Edensor, T. and Millington, S. (2018). Spaces of vernacular creativity reconsidered, this
Frye-Burnham, L. (2007). The artist as leaderin Douglas, A. and Fewmantle, C. (eds.,)
Leading Through Practice. Newcastle: AN Commissions.
Gablik, S. (1991). The Re-Enchantment of Art. London: Thames and Hudson Press.
Gablik, S. (1992). Connective aesthetics,American Art, Vol. 6, no. 2 (Spring), pp. 27.
Available [Accessed: 25 March 2018].
Hays, K. M. and Kogod, L. (2002). Twenty projects at the boundaries of the architectural
discipline examined in relation to the historical and contemporary debates over auton-
omy,Perspecta 33, pp. 5471. Available from:
[Accessed: 25 March 2018].
Keaney, E. (2008). From Indifference To Enthusiasm: Patterns Of Arts Attendance In
England. London: Arts Council England.
Kent, F. (2013). All Placemaking Is Creative: How A Shared Focus On Place Builds Vibrant
Destinations. Available at:
how-a-shared-focus-on-place-builds-vibrant-destinations/. [Accessed: 25 March 2018].
Krauss, R. (1979). Sculpture in an Expanded Field,October, Vol. 8, no. Spring, pp. 3044.
Kwon, M. (2000). The wrong place,Art Journal Vol. 59, no. 1 (Spring), pp. 3344.
Kwon, M. (2004), One Place after Another, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lacy, S. (2008). Time in place: New genre public art a decade laterin Cartiere, C. and
Willis, S. (eds.,) The Practice of Public Art. New York City: Routledge.
Laderman-Ukeles, M. (1969). Manifesto for Maintenance Art [online]. Available at: www. [Accessed 30 May 2018].
Lippard, L. R. (1968). Six Years: The Dematerialisation of the Art Object 1966 1972.
Berkley: University of California Press.
Lowe, R. (2013). Project Row Houses at 20, Creative Time Reports 7, Oct 2013. Available
at: [Accessed:
20 December 2017].
Lydon, M. and Garcia, A. (2105). Tactical Urbanism. Washington: Island Press.
Maeda, J. l. T. (2010). Innovation is born when art meets science,The Guardian [online].
Available at:
[Accessed: 11 April 2015].
Markusen, A. and Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative Placemaking. Washington, DC: Mayors
Institute on City Design and the National Endowment for the Arts. October. Available
from: [Accessed: 23 December 2017].
Markusen, A. and Gadwa Nicodemus, A. (2018). Creative placemaking: Reections on a
21st-century American arts policy initiativethis volume.
Matarasso, F. (1997). Use or Ornament: The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts.
Stroud: Comedia.
Mayors Institute of City Design (MICD). (2015). What is the Mayors Institute? [online].
Available at: [Accessed: 15 January 2013].
McCarthy, K. F. and Jinnett, K. (2001). A New Framework for Building Participation in the
Arts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Available at:
graph_reports/MR1323. [Accessed: 25 March 2018].
McGonagle, D. (2007). Forwardin Butler, D. and Reiss, V. (eds.,) Art of Negotiation.
Manchester: Cornerhouse.
McGonagle, D. (2010). Passive to Active Citizenship: A Role for the Arts. Conference paper,
Bologna in Context, Dublin. 24 October. The Honorable Society of Kings Inns, Dublin.
McGonagle, D. (2011). An OtherProposition - Situating Reciprocal Practicein Parry B.
(ed.) with contributors Medlyn, S. and Tahir, M., Cultural Hijack: Rethinking Interven-
tion. Liverpool University Press, pp. 4048.
McKeown, A., (2015a). Cultivating permaCulural resilience; towards a creative place-
making critical praxis. Unpublished PhD thesis, National College of Art and Design
McKeown, A. (2015b). Deeper, Slower, Richer: A slow intervention towards resilient
places in placemaking,Edge Condition, Vol. 5 (January). Available at: www.edgecondi
[Accessed: 25 March 2018].
Mehta, N. (2012). The Question all Creative Placemakers should Ask. Available at: http:// [Accessed: 14
June 2013].
Miles, M.F.R. (2000). Art and social transformation theories and practices in contempor-
ary art for radical social change. PhD. London: Chelsea College of Art.
National Endowment for the Arts. (2014). Beyond the Building, Performing Arts and
Transforming Place. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.
Pathak, A. N. (2018). A case for human-scale social space in Mumbai, this volume.
Pritchard, S. (2018). Place guarding: Activist art against gentrication, this volume.
Project for Public Spaces. (2013). The Lighter Quicker Cheaper Transformation of Public
Spaces. Available at: [Accessed: 18
January 2013].
Sholette, G. and Thompson, N. (eds.). (2004) The Interventionists: UsersManual for the
Creative Disruption of Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Silberberg, S. (2013). Places In The Making: How Placemaking Builds Places And Com-
munities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sinnott, R. (1983). Audiences, Acquisitions and Amateurs: Participation in the Arts in
Ireland. Dublin: Lansdowne Market Research/The Arts Council Ireland.
Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-And-Imagined Places.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Stern, M. and Seifert, S. (2006). Culture and Urban Revitalization: A Harvest Document.
University of Pennsylvania, PA: School of Social Work, Social Impact of the Arts Project.
UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. Available at: [Accessed: 25 March 2018].
Walker, J. and Marsh, S. (2018). A conversation between a collaborating artist and curator:
Placemaking, socially engaged art, and deep investment in people, this volume.
Ward, S. V. (1998). Selling Places: The Marketing and Promotion of Towns and Cities
18502000. London: Routledge.
Weintraub, L. (2012). To Life: Eco Art in Pursuit of a Sustainable Planet. Berkley and Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Wright, I. (2005). Place-Making as Applied Integral Ecology: Evolving an Ecologically-
Wise Planning Ethic,World Futures, Vol. 61, pp. 127137.
... It is gaining attention and currently discussed in scientific, social and political contexts (e.g. Future Place Leadership 2018;Courage and McKeown 2019a;Hes and Hernandez-Santin 2020). The engaged programme in STS is working on transformations and sustainable development, and thus, it provides a good perspective for theorising placemaking(Rohracher 2015). ...
Full-text available
Cities around the globe are rapidly growing. The high urbanisation rates bear potentials for innovations, including adaptation to climate change and transformations towards sustainability. However, urbanisation also involves risks of increasing social inequalities, gentrification and displacement. These transformations raise questions about how liveable and sustainable public spaces can be created. One approach to dealing with this is placemaking, which has emerged as a movement, concept and tool for improving public spaces since the 1960s. In 2018 with the launch of two placemaking networks in Norway’s capital, placemaking gained attention among policymakers, practitioners and activists. In 2019 Oslo was selected as European Green Capital and presented itself as a growing, green, innovative, creative and liveable city, which aligns with placemaking’s objectives. To analyse placemaking in Oslo, focussing particularly on the Gamle Oslo district, 19 people involved in the ‘making’ of places were interviewed. Drawing on critical perspectives on placemaking and the engaged programme in science and technology studies, the fuzziness of placemaking was analysed. Identifying liveability claims in the existing placemaking literature and movement as a whole, questions of liveability in Oslo–for whom, why and how–arose. The analysis demonstrates that people realising placemaking in Oslo can be categorised in three groups: top-down public sector actors, bottom-up grassroots actors and placemaking professionals focussing on a small and/or large scale projects. The collaboration between top-down and bottom-up actors is particularly challenged due to public regulations, municipal processes, structures and communication issues. Furthermore, deconstructing place narratives, images and myths are ways to analyse power structures and illustrate in-/exclusion and marginalisation processes and make spatial and social inequalities visible. Moreover, to evaluate whether placemaking de facto is improving public places, potential negative environmental and social outcomes of placemaking need to be assessed further. As such, critical perspectives on placemaking open up a possibility to scrutinise how power structures, dynamics, and place narratives are at play in the case studies of the floating sauna and floating garden, as well as at public space Olafiagangen. Keywords: placemaking, public spaces, sense of place, critical perspectives on placemaking, STS, Oslo, liveability
Conference Paper
As the population of metropolitan areas grows, so does the need for private and public outdoor space. In turn, in some EEA (European Economic Area) countries, urban populations are declining, reducing outdoor requirements, and increasing the potential for biodiversity or land degradation. The understanding of private property and its value is constantly evolving and improving. Private property and public outdoor space can mean both concepts or be considered separately. The aim of research on the economic value of urbanized public outdoor space was to conduct literature knowledge appropriate to the research topic. The method of literature analysis is used in the research. The research is carried out by providing an overview of the significant publications in the research of the topic (citation context analysis), identifying the most frequently used terms, as well as the latest theoretical findings, and definitions. As a result of the research, it has been concluded that several other terms are used in research on public outdoor space - public realm, green space, etc. On the other hand, the public good is characterized by the availability of its use to all members of society and its use is free of charge; however, some authors of recent publications explain this understanding of the concept in a different context. The problem with public outdoor space as a public good is that property maintained by the state and local governments is maintained with public funding, and its free value in the context of the public good is a rather conceptual assumption, and so on. In order to continue the study of the value of public outdoor space, it is important to create an understanding of the use and meaning of the concepts, which are analyzed in this study.
Pusat seni dan kebudayaan Jimbaran merupakan suatu kawasan yang menampung berbagai kegiatan seni rupa guna melestarikan budaya dan mengedukasi masyarakat akan seni dan kebudayaan itu sendiri. Maka dari itu penting adanya penggunaan pendekatan placemaking edukatif pada perancangan suatu pusat seni kebudayaan agar dapat menciptakan rancangan yang dapat mengedukasi masyarakat tidak hanya melalui kegiatannya namun juga secara pasif melalui pola rancangannya.Untuk mencapai itu maka perlu ada perancangan ruang luar sebagai fasilitas pendamping yang dapat menambahkan daya tarik dan keguanaan pada pusat seni dan kebudayaan ini. Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk merumuskan kriteria perancangan ruang luar yang baik pada pusat seni dan kebudayaan Jimbaran dengan pendekatan placemaking edukatif yang menggunakan metode studi literatur,yang kemudian menghasilkan suatu gabungan kriteria khusus akan perancangnan ruang luar pusat seni dan kebudayaan di Bali dengan pendekatan placemaking edukatif.
Full-text available
The Big Rainbow Knit is a project informed and influenced by craftivist practices and culminated in the yarn bombing of Huddersfield train station by local, national and international communities of knitters in June 2021. As a landmark project within the WOVEN in Kirklees bi-annual festival, it became an important force for social cohesion in a Covid-19 context. This article introduces The Big Rainbow Knit as a specific case study within the wider context of Kirklees Council’s approach to place-based making.¹ As a textile festival WOVEN in Kirklees is made with, by and for local communities. We firstly address place-based making approaches in the contexts of craftivism and community practice with the aim of secondly, considering how The Big Rainbow Knit is a manifestation of co-creative participation in the spirit of social cohesion. Thirdly, we consider how the concept of the “glocal” is a means through which to reflect on the links between online and offline platforms. We argue that the hybrid between near and far in a “glocal” milieu allows for a range of voices (active knitters, audiences as recipients of yarn bombing activities and community group engagements with The Big Rainbow Knit) to become more visible as key agents in a place-based process. Collectively, these voices, gathered through a range of feedback mechanisms, have helped to change perceptions and attitudes toward knitting in a local authority context and to offer new insights into the ways in which the making-agency of knit can acquire value through place-based cultural development.
Full-text available
In the context of increased interest in literary methods for spatial design, this article argues for a reconsideration of narrative methods for urban planning. It holds that when narrative is taken not as a reified object but as an active mode, in which a strategy for organizing the phenomenal world allows for form to be created from and within the profusion of signs, the importance of heterogeneous non-narrative elements comes into full force, in particular around figurative or metaphorical language, even or especially within the narrative frame. Drawing on work from Bernardo Secchi and Paola Viganò on and around the “porous city” figure and the Greater Paris international consultations, the article makes a case for a narrative of poetic practices. By identifying the polysemic agency of the poetic function, the territorial figure becomes not a comparison between two terms, but a complex linking of similarities in multiple dissimilar states, creating an effect of rapprochement with new possible futures.
Full-text available
O projeto de investigação “(Re)criar o Património – Caracterização de Problemáticas e Tendências para a Curadoria de Residências Artísticas em Portugal” tem como objetivo principal o levantamento de práticas na programação e curadoria de residências artísticas, orientadas para o estudo e/ou valorização do património, em Portugal, na atualidade. Neste contexto, são apresentados os resultados preliminares da análise de 58 programas ou iniciativas de residência artística com estas características, dinamizados, na abrangência do território nacional, entre os anos de 2004 e 2020. A análise de resultados é precedida de um breve enquadramento do projeto ao nível de problemáticas identificadas, no cruzamento entre os campos disciplinares dos estudos de património e estudos artísticos, com enfoque em recentes estudos e doscumentos orientadores, produzidos em contexto português. Discutem-se, ainda, os constrangimentos provocados pela pandemia COVID-19 no que diz respeito ao desenvolvimento do projeto, e, numa outra escala, sobre a programação de residências artísticas. Perspetivamos estratégias de futuro, evidenciando o papel dos museus enquanto promotores deste tipo de iniciativas e enquanto possível interface para a participação (cultural), a nível local.
Full-text available
Placemaking, as a form of urban development often focusing on arts- and community-based approaches, is becoming a key site for responding to pressing social and environmental concerns around the development of sustainable urban futures. This article explores the potential of arts-based methods to develop a “multispecies placemaking” in which “the community” is expanded to also include non-human species. Drawing on a performative event aiming to put the idea of multispecies placemaking into practice, the article brings together theories and practices of the evolving field of multispecies art with the more established field of socially engaged art to discuss challenges of co-creation and participation from a multispecies perspective. It concludes with a reflection on the possibilities of arts-based methods to foster not only methodological innovation within the field of placemaking but also to suggest a re-thinking of what placemaking is and could be.
Full-text available
High-profile architecture and design, alongside integrated arts and cultural programming are now ubiquitous features of public transit networks. This article considers how and why transit-based arts and cultural programmes are proliferating globally as well as the impact of these programmes on transit and urban dynamics. Through critically analysing the discourses surrounding different transit art initiatives and the institutional structures which support them, this article shows how transit art is used today for varied – and often contradictory – ends. Based on this, it argues that we should not uncritically celebrate the rise of transit art as an unmitigated civic good. Rather, we must situate the rise of transit art within a political and aesthetic economy in which art has become ‘expedient’, and contend with the way transit art is implicated in elite, exclusionary and unsustainable processes of urbanisation.
Urban waterfronts are experiencing a renaissance, as it is estimated that by 2030 more than 60 percent of the world's population will live in cities, the majority of which are located in coastal or riparian regions. On a global level, changing public demands have spurred a new language of sustainability, revitalisation, and resilience with regard to urban waterfronts. Prior research has explored the potential ecological and social impacts of these trends, both in terms of benefits such as opportunities for recreation, as well as negative consequences such as increasing gentrification. Less explored, however, are how these planning and development processes can alternately support and/or interrupt existing “sense of place” that people hold with waterfront spaces, particularly spaces considered to be degraded and/or that are located in marginalised communities. This paper explores place-making, place-disruption and place protection associated with Coney Island Creek, a heavily polluted waterbody in New York City. We find that the creek provides recreation, sustenance, and social connections for substantial numbers of people, and we discuss these findings in the context of proposed resiliency planning and development projects that are perceived by some local stewards to threaten existing place attachments and meanings. In particular, we emphasise the importance of incorporating local knowledge and values in waterfront planning, especially in neighbourhoods that have been historically marginalised. This study contributes to a growing literature on values associated with urban blue spaces, thus furthering knowledge of how to improve current environmental governance strategies in coastal cities around the world.
Full-text available
The contemporary ‘digital age’ prompts the need for a re-assessment of urban planning principles and practices. Against the background of current data-rich urban planning, this study seeks to address the question whether an appropriate methodological underpinning can be provided for smart city governance based on a data-driven planning perspective. It posits that the current digital technology age has a drastic impact on city strategies and calls for a multi-faceted perspective on future urban development, termed here the ‘XXQ-principle’ (which seeks to attain the highest possible level of quality for urban life). Heterogeneity in urban objectives and data embodied in the XXQ-principle can be systematically addressed by a process of data decomposition (based on a ‘cascade principle’), so that first, higher-level urban policy domains are equipped with the necessary (‘big’) data provisions, followed by lower-ranking urban governance levels. The conceptual decomposition principle can then be translated into a comprehensive hierarchical model architecture for urban intelligence based on the ‘flying disc’ model, including key performance indicators (KPIs). This new model maps out the socio-economic arena of a complex urban system according to the above cascade system. The design of this urban system architecture and the complex mutual connections between its subsystems is based on the ‘blowing-up’ principle that originates from a methodological deconstruction-reconstruction paradigm in the social sciences. The paper advocates the systematic application of this principle to enhance the performance of smart cities, called the XXQ performance value. This study is not empirical, although it is inspired by a wealth of previous empirical research. It aims to advance conceptual and methodological thinking on principles of smart urban planning.
Es posible pensar la crisis económica actual como el resultado de una matriz multidimensional de causas sistémicas que operan de acuerdo con un número finito de dinámicas estructurales y de variables geoeconómicas y geopolíticas cuyas lógicas definen la reproducción de la estructura social de acuerdo con las pautas de comportamiento generadas por el capitalismo histórico o tan solo debemos interpretarla como el desajuste parcial de un sistema económico que carece de historia y racionalidad sistémica y cuya lógica únicamente puede reconstruirse de acuerdo con el concepto neoclásico y neoliberal de mercado y con el modelo de elección racional del homo economicus? ¿Es la crisis que arranca de 2008-2009 una crisis antropológica y ética, una crisis del mercado y de sus modos de organización de la competencia, una crisis de los modelos de regulación y de governance inspirados por el frame neoliberal impuesto durante las últimas décadas o estamos ante una crisis del capitalismo concebido como sistema de reproducción social y de los equilibrios de su último ciclo sistémico de acumulación estadounidense así como de las relaciones de fuerza existentes entre los sujetos colectivos que se involucran en los procesos de producción y de reproducción social y en la traducción política de sus necesidades en los ámbitos nacionales, regionales y globales? ¿Es posible ofrecer una interpretación de la crisis de acuerdo con el concepto estándar de racionalidad económica que inspira los paradigmas interpretativos predominantes en las ciencias sociales y humanas contemporáneas o es preciso recurrir simultáneamente a una teoría coherente del capitalismo como sistema social e histórico y a una teoría del poder inherente al mismo que nos ofrezcan herramientas para comprender el ciclo integral de la dominación y la explotación social, política, económica y cultural que definen los contornos de un momento histórico determinado?