Advertisement

The Amplifier Effect: Oslo Youth Co-creating Urban Spaces of (Be)longing

  • Ingrid M. Tolstad
  • Aina Landsverk Hagen
  • Bengt Andersen
Chapter

Abstract

How can young residents actively co-create and co-design urban space? This chapter aims to share methodological insight on what we call the “amplifier effect”: the co-joined effort of anthropologists, artists, and architects to experiment within a disciplinary framework, to increase youth’s well-being and enhance the participation and influence of youth on policymaking in cities. Based on exploratory ethnographic encounters with minority youth in Tøyen, the eastern part of the capital of Oslo, Norway, we investigate the strengths and failures of experimental engagements, through discussing (1) youth co-exploring their sense of (be)longing and (2) youth as potential co-creators of urban spaces. We discuss key methodological challenges and limitations and conclude with looking at the amplifier’s potential for impact on social change.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our colleagues in the project team: Nina Vestby, Karoline Hjorth, Jenny Osuldsen, Monika Rosten, and Ingar Brattbakk and the students and teachers at Hersleb High School and the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), for interesting discussions, active participation, and proposing developing innovative solutions to every possible obstacle.

Funding

The pilot project “Alternative Spaces: Youth Stories of the Future” was funded by the Research Council of Norway (PROFORSK, 2015). The ongoing project “Alternative Spaces: Youths’ Participation” is allocated to the Work Research Institute, Oslo, and Akershus University College and funded by the Norwegian ExtraFoundation for Health and Rehabilitation, through Save the Children Norway (2016–2018).

References

  1. Andersen, B. (2012). “Oslo gettoiseres” [Oslo is becoming ghettoized]. In S. Indregard (Ed.), Motgift. Akademisk respons på den nye høyreekstremismen [Antidote. Academic responses to the new right-wing extremism] (pp. 172–186). Oslo: Flamme Forlag & Forlaget Manifest.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, B. (2014). Westbound and eastbound. Managing sameness and the making of separations in Oslo. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, B., & Biseth, H. (2013). The myth of failed integration: The case of eastern Oslo. City & Society, 25(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ciso.12004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, B., & Røe, P. G. (2016). The social context and politics of large scale urban architecture: Investigating the design of Barcode. European Urban and Regional Studies: Oslo. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776416643751 Google Scholar
  5. Andersen, B., Brattbakk, I., & Dalseide, A. M. (2017). Tøyenliv og Vinderenliv: Likheter og ulikheter i en segregert by [Lives in Tøyen and in Vindern: Equalities and inequalities in a segregated city]. In J. Ljunggren (Ed.), Oslo – ulikhetenes by [Oslo – The city of differences]. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.Google Scholar
  6. Andersen, P. L., & Ljunggren, J. (2014). “Gylne ghettoer. Inntektselitens bostedssegregering i Oslo, 1980–2005” [Golden ghettoes. The segregation of housing among the income elite in Oslo, 1980–2005]. In O. H. Korsnes, M. Nordli, & J. Hjellbrekke (Eds.), Elite og klasse i et egalitært samfunn [Elite and class in an egalitarian society] (pp. 126–143). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  7. Aspen, J., & Pløger, J. (2015). Den vitale byen [The vital city]. Oslo: Scandinavian Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Aure, V. (2011). Kampen om blikket: En longitudinell studie der formidling av kunst til barn og unge danner utganspunkt for kunstdidaktiske diskursanalyser [The fight of the gaze: A longitudinal study where dissemination of art to children and youth is the outset of art didactic discourse analyses]. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  9. Bastien, S., & Holmarsdottir, H. B. (2015). Youth “at the margins”: Critical perspectives and experiences of engaging youth in research worldwide. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-052-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bauder, H. (2015). Possibilities of urban belonging. Antipode, 48(2), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brattbakk, I., Hagen, A. L., Andersen, B., Sæter, O., Thorstensen, E., Rosten, M. G., …, Osuldsen, J. (2015). Hva nå, Tøyen? Sosiokulturell stedsanalyse av Tøyen i bydel Gamle Oslo [What now, Tøyen? A sociocultural site analysis of Tøyen in the municipality of Old Oslo]. Report 8/2015. Oslo: Work Research Institute. doi:https://doi.org/10.7577/afi/rapport/2015:8
  13. Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2014). The “Urban Age” in question. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(3), 731–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carmon, N., & Fainstein, S. S. (2013). Policy, planning, and people: Promoting justice in urban development. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812207965 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivasta, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1, 129–169.Google Scholar
  16. Dear, M., & Lucero, H. M. (2010). Postborder cities, postborder world: The rise of Bajalta California. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.), The Blackwell City reader (2nd ed., pp. 133–137). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Derr, V., & Kovács, I. G. (2017). How participatory processes impact children and contribute to planning: A case study of neighborhood design from Boulder, Colorado, USA. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 10(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1111925 Google Scholar
  18. Elwood, S., & Hawkins, H. (2017). Intradisciplinarity and visual politics. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1230413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eriksen, T. H. (2015). Rebuilding the ship at sea: Super-diversity, person and conduct in eastern Oslo. Global Networks, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eriksen, T. H. (2016). Overheating: The world since 1991. History and Anthropology., 27(5), 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2016.1218865 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Falleth, E. I., Hanssen, G. S., & Saglie, I. L. (2008). Medvirkning i byplanlegging i Norge [Participation in urban planning in Norway]. Report 37/2008. Oslo: NIBR.Google Scholar
  22. Falleth, E. I., Hanssen, G. S., & Saglie, I. L. (2010). Challenges to democracy in market-oriented urban planning in Norway. European Planning Studies, 18(5), 737–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654311003607729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feitelson, E. (2013). Environmental equity: Is it a viable city planning goal. In N. Carmon & S. S. Fainstein (Eds.), Policy, planning, and people: Promoting justice in urban development (pp. 54–74). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  24. Frodeman, R. (2014). Sustainable knowledge: A theory of interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137303028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gabrielsen, G. V. (2014). Groruddalen: Oslos vakreste verkebyll? Problemrepresentasjoner og stedsforståelser i Groruddalssatsingen [Groruddalen: The prettiest abscess in Oslo? Presentations of problems and understandings of places in the area-based development in Groruddalen]. Doctoral dissertation, Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Oslo.Google Scholar
  26. Galster, G. C., & Killen, S. P. (1995). The geography of metropolitan opportunity: A reconnaissance and conceptual framework. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1), 7–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.1995.9521180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibson, J. J. (1979/2015). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  28. Hagen, A. L., Brattbakk, I., Andersen, B., Dahlgren, K. & Ascher, B. (2016a). Ungdomstråkk. Ungdoms bruk av uterom, parker og plasser – forprosjekt [Youth tracks: Youths’ use of outdoor spaces, parks and squares – A feasibility study]. R&I report 1/2016. Oslo: Work Research Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Hagen, A. L., Brattbakk, I., Andersen, B., Dahlgren, K., & Ascher, B. (2016b). Ung og ute: En studie av ungdom og unge voksnes bruk av uterom [Young and out: A study of youth and young adults use of outdoor spaces]. Report 6/2016. Oslo: Work Research Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Hanssen, G. S., Hofstad, H., & Saglie, I.-L. (2015). Kompakt byutvikling: Muligheter og utfordringer [Compact urban development: Possibilities and challenges]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  31. Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Huse, T. (2014). Everyday life in the gentrifying city: On displacement, ethnic privileging and the right to stay put. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  33. Keams, R. A., & Gesler, W. M. (1998). Putting health into place: Landscape, identity, and well-being. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Luccarelli, M., & Røe, P. G. (2012). Introduction: Nature, urbanism and liveability. In M. Luccarelli & P. G. Røe (Eds.), Green Oslo: Visions, planning and discourse (pp. 1–24). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  36. Nightingale, C. H. (2012). Segregation. A global history of divided cities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226580777.001.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities. Cambridge: Belknap/Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ortner, S. (2006). Anthropology and social theory: Culture, power and the acting subject. Durham: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 521(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharma, S., & Sharma, M. (2010). Self: Social identity and psychological well-being. Psychological Studies, 55(2), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-010-0011-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sullivan, G. (2010). Art practice as research-inquiry in visual arts (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. UNFPA. (2015). State of the world population 2015. doi:10.18356/b793d926-en
  44. UN Habitat. (2017, March 15). Youth. Retrieved from https://unhabitat.org/urban-themes/youth/
  45. Vestby, N. (2015). I crossed the line. InFormation: Nordic Journal of Art and Research, 4(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.7577/if.v4i2.1546 Google Scholar
  46. Wessel, T. (2015). Economic segregation in Oslo: polarisation as a contingent outcome. In T. Tammaru, S. Musterd, M. van Ham, & S. Marcinczak (Eds.), Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities: East meets West (Vol. 6, pp. 132–155). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. The American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/217913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313220600769331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingrid M. Tolstad
    • 1
  • Aina Landsverk Hagen
    • 1
  • Bengt Andersen
    • 1
  1. 1.Oslo and Akershus University CollegeOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations