Keywords

1 Introduction

Cities face a variety of challenges today. These challenges include structural change in the retail sector, climate change and the necessary climate adaptation measures associated with it (Frauns & Scheuvens 2010; Kalandides et al. 2016; Lüscher 2015). In addition, increasing social polarization and a lack of social cohesion, as well as a lack of individuality and neglected public space, are current issues confronting urban development (Fahle & Burg 2014; Frauns & Scheuvens 2010; Trommer 2015). This development is also reflected in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, which include making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (DSDG 2019).

Public space is the space where the public is formed and as such a place of social action of any kind (Brendgens 2005; Wolf & Mahaffey 2016). The design of public space as a meeting place for urban society and as a source of identity is particularly central. Therefore, an attractive design that meets the diverse demands of the residents is necessary (BBSR 2019).

Currently, participation culture in Germany rarely allows active participation and co-creation in planning processes in public space. However, in order to meet the diverse needs, new activation and participation formats are needed, as well as a rethinking of planning processes. ‘Participation is [thus] not only an instrumental enrichment of planning, but also a path to creative spatial development’ (Ipsen 2010 p. 237). Ultimately, sustainable urban development is also a social process of different actors, which is thus characterized by cooperation and communication (Kagan, Kirchfeld & Weisenfeld 2019).

This article examines cooperative planning as a strategy for opening up planning processes to different stakeholders of the city and a mode of active co-production of space. The public space project ‘Österreichischer Platz’ is used as a current example for cooperative urban development. In the absence of an up-to-date and accurate definition of cooperative planning processes, an initial attempt at definition is based on this case study.

2 Participation in Urban Planning Processes

2.1 Fundamentals and Legal Framework

Since the 1980s, openly kept participation processes have become established in urban planning, as they often lead to an improvement in the content and concept of planning (Bodenschatz & Polinna 2010; Häussermann, Holm & Zunzer 2002; Healey 2012; Selle 2013).

In formal planning processes (e.g. municipal urban land use planning), formal participation of the public and of the bodies responsible for public affairs is required in accordance with §§3,4 BauGB, meaning public information about the planning and opportunity for expression of opinion must be given. With this type of participation, planning law aims to avoid impairments or disturbances by third parties (Selle 2018), but not to empower people to take part in the development of these plans.

Today, informal integrated urban development complements formal planning processes in order to comprehensively meet the multitude of challenges of urban development. Integrated urban development concepts aim, for example, to work out future guiding principles for the development of a city or neighbourhood together with local actors based on an analysis of the current situation. Recommendations for action are also part of these strategies. They rely on active cooperation between citizens, municipalities and economic actors (Krappweis 2020; Beckmann 2018; Frank & Strauss 2010; Wékel 2018).

The German urban renewal strategy (Art. 104b GG and §§136-171e BauGB) also offers participation possibilities. Thereafter, cities can apply for urban development funding. Residents and other stakeholders are then given the opportunity to participate, e.g. through open discussions, surveys or workshops. They can get a direct say by being able to implement smaller measures by themselves, financed by a disposal fund (‘Verfügungsfond’) (BBSR 2018; BMVBS 2012). Furthermore, it is possible for the citizens to discuss the renewal processes in a neighbourhood management with a direct contact person (BBSR 2018).

Despite these long-standing approaches, opportunities for participation and co-determination in urban planning processes for civil actors remain limited. Recently, the political-administrative planning apparatus is opening up to alternative, experimental and more cooperative participation, in the form of temporary interventions (Schaumann & Simon-Philipp 2018) and civic commitment (Humann & Polinna 2020). The interest in and promotion of cooperative planning is reflected not least in the recently launched federal award ‘Koop. Stadt’, which honours successful examples of cooperation between municipalities and civil actors.

2.2 Cooperative Planning as a Theoretical Practice

Although cooperative planning seems to be a quite popular term recently, a more precise or descriptive definition of this term is still lacking. In an attempt to theoretically delimit cooperative planning processes, this article refers to aspects of cooperation, collaborative planning and co-production to form a temporary definition.

Cooperation itself is defined as a strategic and temporary teamwork on clearly defined areas of cooperation between equals to achieve a goal that one party alone can either not accomplish at all or at least as well (BBSR 2020). According to Sennett (2019), cooperation is a craft that requires the ability to listen, empathize and dialogue and dialogic cooperation therefore the highest goal (Sennett 2019, p. 17). Successful cooperation also involves curiosity, appreciation and mutual trust of all parties involved (BBSR 2020).

Referring to these characteristics of cooperation, conclusive similarities to collaborative planning and coproduction can be drawn. Collaborative planning is deemed as an ‘inclusive dialogic approach to shaping social space’ (Brand & Gaffikin 2007, p. 283) by constant reflection and undistorted debate. This kind of continuous negotiation contributes to a sustainable development of neighbourhoods, cities and regions and thus strengthens societal cohesion (BBSR 2020, p. 8). However, if one takes collaboration as a term for ideational working together on a topic, it seems to differ from Sennett’s understanding of cooperation as craft in so far. Critics further note that collaborative planning is relying too much on consensus and commonality to represent a diversity of opinions. Thus, a demand for a more agonistic approach is emerging (Brand & Gaffikin 2007).

Cooperative planning seems to coincide with the definition of co-production as given by Wolf and Mahaffey (2016) of ‘a non-hierarchical methodology, an indirect approach to problem solving that embraces complexity, multiplicity of actors, processes, ideas and solutions’ (p. 64). Yet, while participants in co-productive processes collaborate on a common task, in cooperative planning, parties are working parallel on individual areas (BBSR 2020).

Due to their dialogic character, cooperative processes need to be open-ended (Selle 2018). An experimental approach supports the dialogue and negotiation of different needs (Sennett 2019). In this way, the planning homogeneity that often prevails today is counteracted and spaces of potentiality are co-produced (Wolf & Mahaffey 2016).

To illustrate as well as to prove these found criteria for cooperative planning processes, this article analyses the development of the ‘Österreichischer Platz’ in Stuttgart as a practice example.

3 Case Study ‘Österreichischer Platz’

3.1 General Context

The ‘Österreichischer Platz’ is a multistorey traffic structure in Stuttgart. This ‘square’ is situated in the very centre of the city and consists of a traffic circle with an adjoining bridge, a parking area underneath and an adjacent federal road. As a relic of the car-friendly city, the traffic structure and its surrounding area have been on the agenda of local urban planning authorities for a long time. Due to the difficult traffic situation and a complex variety of stakeholders, no conclusive plan has been developed (Fig. 18.1).

Fig. 18.1
figure 1

View of the traffic structure with the parking space beneath the traffic circle

Full size image

The association Stadtlücken e.V.Footnote 1 initiated an intervention in 2016 that asked for alternative uses for the parking area, thereby a cooperative development of this actually public space was stimulated. Politics, city administration, civil initiatives and citizens were working together on a common vision.

3.2 Strategy for Spatial Activation

After the success of their initial activities in 2016, the municipality asked Stadtlücken to hand in a proposal for the development of the parking space. Their strategy included an open-ended experimental process over the course of 2 years (period of municipal budget), involving various initiatives and the civil population. The city council approved the strategy and provided a subsidy for the implementation of the project.

The experimental field ‘Österreichischer Platz’ was set up in the front area of the parking space. To get a better understanding of the area and its needs, different usage scenarios were tried out throughout the 2-year project phase. The ideas for potential usages, generated by Stadtlücken and other civil actors, ranged from housing (with a tiny house exhibition), public cinema, concerts and a children’s playground to flea markets. Openly formulated social and democratic values were set up as a scope of action. While the space was still clearly recognizable as a former parking lot, a floor graphic and a few seating facilities formed the design framework for further civic engagement (Fig. 18.2).

Fig. 18.2
figure 2

View of the location during the preparations for the opening

Full size image

Especially in the beginning, members of Stadtlücken took care of the place and organized activities. The activation of the parking space through the idea of an open construction site and the events generated a lot of attention with neighbours and passers-by. The project’s further publicity strategy included a constantly updated calendar of events onlineFootnote 2 and on site as well as an Instagram channel.

After the first year of intense experimentation, Stadtlücken as curators evaluated the first trials and adapted the usage concept. Regarding noise complaints by neighbours, some of the suggested ideas for the site were either cast off or adapted. Furthermore, a weekly café was installed as an open meeting point for the neighbourhood with one association member as a permanent contact person, who was also needed.

3.3 Cooperative Process Development

The implementation of such an urban development process required the cooperation of the city administration, civil actors and politicians. At the very beginning of the project, a round table was set up to exchange information and quickly solve problems. This table brought together Stadtlücken (as site and project manager), the Economic Development Agency (as manager of the funding), the Civil Engineering Office (as owner of the parking space), the Office for Public Order (as responsible for events) and the Office for Urban Planning as well as other changing offices.

This practice enabled the development of a general event permit for the association. In contrast to the usual 3-month approval period, events could be held at short notice. The installation of a public bouldering facility at the site required an intensive cooperation between civil actors and the administration, as public access in connection with the liability was a major issue.

Throughout the process, Stadtlücken administered and cultivated the space and curated and supervised the various ideas for its use as ‘Raumagenten’Footnote 3 (BBSR 2020). A call for ideas invited civil actors to submit their ideas. On a simple idea sheet, interested parties were able to write down their concrete idea for use, their individual role description in the implementation process and the support they needed to proceed. This procedure should lead the participants to recognize their own responsibility and design possibilities in the project. To further involve the neighbourhood and adjacent businesses in the project, the association initiated several neighbourhood meetings. The topics and concerns collected during those meetings were passed on to the round tables with the authorities.

Together with the minimal spatial design and the technical infrastructure, which was built up over time, the idea sheets and the neighbourhood meetings completed the framework for civic participation and co-production. At the end of the 2-year period, the ‘Österreichischer Platz’ counted around 175 single events. In a preliminary evaluation process, certain key findings, such as a need for space for the common good, culture, encounter, exercise and experiments, were established for the further development of the site (Fig. 18.3).

Fig. 18.3
figure 3

The ‘Österreichischer Platz’ as a place of negotiation for different actors and uses

Full size image

In a more advanced strategy, Stadtlücken and the administration together proposed the development of a cooperative urban space for the new funding period. The elaborated vision envisaged a cooperative consisting of honorary associations and initiatives. The initiatives would use the space itself and manage and provide the space for the general public in cooperation with the city council and administration. The ‘Österreichischer Platz’ would thereby not only include public space but also studios, workshops and co-working spaces. This concept was again approved by the municipal council.

4 Assessment

To classify the experimental planning process of the ‘Österreichischer Platz’ as cooperative, this article refers to the identified characteristics of cooperation, co-production and collaborative planning processes as described above. Assessing the characteristics of the development process, many aspects of participatory cooperative planning were met.

Cooperation between the individual actors took place in parallel sub-areas while collaborating on a common task. Personal contact at the round tables established a base of mutual respect and trust. As a civil initiative, Stadtlücken was given a lot of room for creative leeway by politics and administration. The fact that the project was mainly based on volunteer work thereby certainly played a fundamental role. In the end, the successful cooperation of politicians, administration and civil initiatives made this project possible.

Due to the spatially central location of the project site and the implementation concept, a large cross-section of diverse actors was reached. In addition to representatives from politics and administration, the actors included initiatives, residents and passers-by who all at one point or another were involved in meetings, in activities on site or at events. Since every idea for use directly went into temporary implementation and became apparent in real space, a constant negotiation about common values took place as well. In this sense, direct communication based on empathy and sympathy was even more important, as not every negotiation necessarily produced a consensus.

As a framework, the idea sheets with their clear allocation of responsibilities and the temporary implementation of ideas in experiments gave equal and low-threshold opportunity to all civil participants to actively take part in the design process and the negotiation of public space. The formulated scope for action gave everybody the same opportunity to submit ideas and implement them and was not tied to social or financial status. Thus, local social fringe groups were also able to participate in the project, and mediation between different social groups could take place on site. Nevertheless, comprehensive online participation formats could have expanded the process.

Since the project was still in an experimental and determination phase of use, there was plenty of leeway for all parties involved. Through the structure of the project, anyone could actively participate in the process of opinion making, as well as the development and implementation process. The experimental and processual character of the project created an urban space as a space of potentiality including plenty of room for productive civic engagement and participation.

5 Conclusion

As the assessment shows, the process characteristics of the ‘Österreichischer Platz’ do qualify as cooperative. A combination of collaborative and co-productive features does in fact apply. The planning process is characterized by the cooperation of different actors individually collaborating on a task and thus co-producing a real common result. In this sense, cooperation actually can be described with Sennett’s words as something craft-like, since it is about the joint creation of something—in this case space.

Successful cooperative planning as collaborative planning is depending on a participation of all relevant stakeholders. However, how do you ensure that all relevant participants actually take part in the process? Although the project was able to reach broad sections of the city society, it is highly likely that not all relevant actors participated in the process. Sufficient time for the negotiation process, direct dialogic communication, increased presence and responsiveness on site would probably allow more reach. An even larger audience could be reached through the increased use of digital and online tools.

In this context, what are the benefits of cooperative planning? First, the experimental approach makes participation in the process equally accessible to everyone, does not require a professional background and as a cooperation of different disciplines produces innovative solutions. Those characteristics are missing in many classic participation models in formal planning. Furthermore, the flexibility vital for experimental implementation can hardly be provided by heavy administrative apparatuses (Kagan et al. 2019). The artisanal character of cooperative planning makes it possible for participants to actively create and produce something instead of just expressing their opinion on already existing plans. However, as the course of the project has shown, most citizens first have to learn to actively engage with urban space. An understanding of creative work on urban visions and new usage concepts must be developed.

Additionally, the question of competence and responsibility is crucial for the continuation of projects deriving from cooperative planning processes. Municipalities need structures where power sharing and a joint learning process enable civil actors to build their own city. By enabling citizens to actively shape their own urban space, the feeling of ownership and responsibility grows and sustainable, innovative solutions are more likely to develop.