• Andrew TolandEmail author
  • Melissa Cate Christ
  • Julian Worrall


Digital placemaking is a term given to a range of evolving practices that combine emerging digital technologies and placemaking initiatives. Over the past five years, its meaning has significantly shifted as a result of the proliferation of smartphones as mobile technological platforms and the ubiquity of social media. This chapter aims to move beyond the current fashionability of both the ‘digital’ and ‘placemaking’ discourses to provide a critical consideration of various ways in which technology is shaping social-spatial design, research, and practices and vice versa. It considers a number of diverse cases in which urban situations and digital technologies have intersected. Ultimately, however, we argue that the techno-social matrix through which we currently perceive and understand the city is now already deeply suffused with digital media and tools, raising a question as to what the adjectival modifier ‘digital’ actually illuminates. This requires us to refocus our attention back towards the making of places with the most effective tools available, which will inevitably involve a mix of the analogue and the digital.


Digital placemaking Crowdsourcing Community mapping Participatory design Post-disaster Temporary urbanism 


  1. Actua. (2017, February 28). The number of visitors in Andorra increased again in 2016 and exceeded 8 million. Retrieved from Accessed 29 April 2019.
  2. Alonso, L., Zang Y.R., Grignard A., Noyman, A., Sakai, Y., ElKatsha M., … Larson, K. (2018, July). Cityscope: A data-driven interactive simulation tool for urban design: Use case volpe. In International conference on complex systems (pp. 253–261). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Always at the edge of things and between places. Melissa Cate Christ (Ed.). (2017). Hong Kong: Connecting Space Hong Kong and HKADC. Exhibition catalogue.Google Scholar
  4. Aurigi, A., & De Cindio, F. (Eds.). (2008). Augmented urban spaces: Articulating the physical and electronic city. Aldershot: Ashgate. Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, B. (2018, September 20). Feasting in the broken city. In The big idea. Retrieved from
  6. Bennett, B., Boidi, E., & Boles, I. (Eds.). (2013). Christchurch—The transitional city pt IV. Wellington, New Zealand: Freerange Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brynskov, M., Carvajal Bermúdez, J. C., Fernández, M., Korsgaard, H., Mulder, I. J., Piskorek, K., … De Waal, M. (2014). Urban interaction design: Towards city making. Amsterdam: Urban IxD Booksprint.Google Scholar
  8. Carlton, S. (2013). Share an idea, spare a thought community consultation in Christchurch’s time-bound post-earthquake rebuild. Journal of Human Rights in the Commonwealth, 1(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD). (2018). Slope safety system in Hong Kong. Retrieved from Accessed 10 April 2019.
  10. Fredericks, J., Hespanhol, L., & Tomitsch, M. (2016, June). Not just pretty lights: Using digital technologies to inform city making. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Media Architecture Biennale (p. 7). ACM.Google Scholar
  11. Fredericks, J., Tomitsch, M., & Stewart, L. (2017). Design patterns for integrating digitally augmented pop-ups with community engagement. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 6(3), 19–41.Google Scholar
  12. Gapfiller. (n.d.). Website. Accessed 11 April 2019.
  13. Griffiths, M., & Barbour, K. (2016). Making publics, making places. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grignard, A., Macià, N., Alonso Pastor, L., Noyman, A., Zhang, Y., & Larson, K. (2018, July). Cityscope andorra: A multi-level interactive and tangible agent-based visualization. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (pp. 1939–1940). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
  15. Haeusler, M. H., Tomitsch, M., Tscherteu, G., & Van Berkel, B. (2012). New media facades: A global survey. Ludwigsburg: Av edition.Google Scholar
  16. Halliday, J. (2017). FESTA festival of transitional architecture in Christchurch, New Zealand. The Journal of Public Space, 2(3), 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hespanhol, L., Haeusler, H. M., Tomitsch, M., & Tscherteu, G. (2017). Cities of electronic clay: Media architecture for malleable public spaces. In Media architecture compendium: Digital placemaking (pp. 54–56). Stuttgart: Av edition. Google Scholar
  18. Kalms, N. (2018, June 17). To design safer parks for women, city planners must listen to their stories. The Conversation. Retrieved from
  19. Kember, S., & Zylinska, J. (2012). Life after new media: Mediation as a vital process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Latorre, D. (2011, September 21). Digital placemaking—Authentic civic engagement. Project for Public Spaces. Retrieved from
  21. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). (2017, October 13). Small European nation becomes a “living lab” for urban innovation researchers. Retrieved from
  22. Monash University. (n.d.). Gender equality map. Retrieved from Accessed 23 February 2018.
  23. O’Neill, K. (2016). Pixels and places: Designing human experience across physical and digital spaces. New York: KO Insights.Google Scholar
  24. Padawangi, R., & Douglass, M. (2015). Water, water everywhere: Toward participatory solutions to chronic urban flooding in Jakarta. Pacific Affairs, 88(3), 517–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Picon, A. (2015). Smart cities: A spatialised intelligence. Chichester, UK: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stalder, F. (2018). The digital condition . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tang, W. S., Lee, J. W. Y., & Ng, M. K. (2012). Public engagement as a tool of hegemony: The case of designing the new central harbourfront in Hong Kong. Critical Sociology, 38(1), 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Toland, A., & Kilbane, S. (2018). City mega-models as literal and figurative visioning tools. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Urban Design and Planning, 171(4), 166–176.Google Scholar
  29. Tomitsch, M. (2016). Communities, spectacles and infrastructures: Three approaches to digital placemaking. In S. Pop, T. Toft, N. Calvillo, & M. Wright (Eds.), What urban media art can do: Why, when, where, and how. Stuttgart: Av edition.Google Scholar
  30. Travis, C., & Von Lünen, A. (Eds.). (2016). The Digital arts and humanities: Neogeography, social media and big data integrations and applications . Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Urban Sustainability Exchange. (n.d.). Gender-sensitive park design at Einsiedlerpark and St. Johann Park. Retrieved from Accessed 3 February 2018.
  32. Wesener, A. (2015). Temporary urbanism and urban sustainability after a natural disaster: Transitional community-initiated open spaces in Christchurch, New Zealand. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 8(4), 406–422.Google Scholar
  33. Women Victoria. (n.d.). Gender equality map. Retrieved from Accessed 3 February 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Toland
    • 1
    Email author
  • Melissa Cate Christ
    • 2
  • Julian Worrall
    • 3
  1. 1.School of ArchitectureUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of DesignHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung HomHong Kong
  3. 3.School of Technology, Environments and DesignUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations