Keywords

1 Introduction

1.1 Current Approaches to the Planning of Cities and Neighbourhoods

As cities around the world have been radically and continuously changing in response to diverse challenges, urban planning and city development need to evolve into complex and multidimensional processes that place urban resilience, social sustainability, and a sense of ‘belonging’ at the forefront. Understanding urban environments as places with different actors and stakeholders requires the collaborative involvement of many and diverse stakeholders in their design. Transdisciplinary cooperation in decision-making, co-creation approaches in the design process, as well as innovative initiatives regarding urban commons, city and neighborhood planning, appear to be more important than ever.

Urban resilience has become an important goal for cities, particularly in the face of contemporary challenges [1]; it has to do with recovering from crises and is directly related to the concept of sustainability, as the two concepts are recognized as interrelated, highlighting the potential to achieve sustainable urban development [2]. Social sustainability is acknowledged as an important part of sustainable development as a process that improves a community’s quality of life [3], resulting in their happiness, security, health, and quality of life [4]. Social relationships and a sense of “belonging” are important factors in a community's social sustainability and resilience [5, 6], contributing to shared emotional connection through interaction with others, strong shared values, shared norms and codes [7, 8]. Educators, scholars, practitioners and activists among many others, have been highlighting inclusion and participation in the decision making and design processes regarding urban space, as a vital element towards achieving and sustaining urban resilience [9, 10]. This argument illustrates the importance of transdisciplinary approaches in knowledge production and of co-creation practices in the design of urban spaces.

Transdisciplinary and transdisciplinarity are relatively recent terms, meant to highlight the need to transcend disciplinary boundaries and create holistic problem-solving approaches for city planning through the combination knowledge, tools and methods stemming from both the academic and non-academic world [11]. A transdisciplinary approach supports bottom-up collaborations, and creates a nurturing environment for mutual learning and cross-pollination between different participants [12]. Such a setting is a prerequisite for a co-creation process to flourish. In urban planning, co-creation can be described as the last steps on Arnstein’s ladder of participation, “delegated power” and “citizen control” [13]: co-creation is defined as a process where participants can have active and prominent decision-making roles, exhibiting traces of self-organisation, increased commitment and a sense of ownership of the process [14].

Recent research is exploring new methods of urban planning in which citizens and municipalities co-create new planning rules or collectively shape and prioritise actions related to urban space [15], as is the case of the Co-Cities initiative in Bologna, a co-governance scheme between citizens and municipal authorities that provides a transdisciplinary, co-creation framework for joint decision making in matters regarding the city’s services, policies and spaces [16]. Such practices highlight a continuity in engagement and a level of delegation of power that are crucial in fostering a sense of ownership and belonging among citizens and community members, towards both the urban spaces, and the processes that shape them. Therefore, the urban commons paradigm becomes an increasingly relevant model for urban governance. The term urban commons refer to urban resources (commons) that are managed by their users collaboratively (commoners), through collectively agreed-upon rules in a non-profit-oriented way (commoning) [17]. As a co-governance model, the urban commons paradigm highlights the importance of redefining urban values in contemporary cities while, in parallel, helping to build creative and open processes that foster experimentation, collaborative knowledge production, and trust among those involved.

1.2 Architectural Research and Pedagogy Having a Social Impact

The need for continuous, inclusive, and pro-social practices in urban design, development, and governance should also be reflected in the way future design professionals, specifically architects, are trained. Consequently, the need for a more responsive architectural pedagogy raises questions about the relevance of knowledge and research in architecture as an educational discipline and as a profession [18]. The traditional role of the architect, as well as the knowledge and skills required of a future architect, are being called into question. According to academic Ashraf M. Salama [18], there should be a continuous focus on the skills required for successful practice by incorporating scenarios that involve real interaction with the everyday environment into architectural pedagogy programs to promote critical thinking. Various architectural educational methods focused on community engagement, situated learning, and transdisciplinarity are now at the center of discussion in this framework, supporting the student’s active role in the process of learning [19]. Since the beginning of the 21st century, a wide range of different pedagogical architectural approaches and methodologies that propose the architectural design studio to be embedded in the real environment through a co-creation framework have been widely discussed, applied, and criticized, such as community design [20], “live projects” [21, 22], and “design-build projects” [23].

Moreover, universities have a civic responsibility to the cities of which they are a part, both in terms of sharing the expertise and knowledge they produce [24] and in terms of their role as “significant institutional actors” in urban development processes with great power and visibility [19]. Communities and universities, according to Sara and Jones [24], can develop a twoway collaboration between citizens, architects, students, and academics by co-creating new knowledge. This knowledge co-production makes the university “an urban agent with transformative potential for co-creating more sustainable, resilient communities” and has the potential to be transformative as the city and its residents become change agents for the institution.

In this framework, the co-creation studio at the Department of Architecture at the University of Cyprus (https://www.instagram.com/cocreationstudio.ucy/) was established and implemented in 2021 in an attempt to put a higher priority on social sustainability issues during the architectural design studio and systematize research and its relationship with pedagogy. It embraces a transdisciplinary framework and incorporates community-engaged approaches and situated learning. Simultaneously, it examines the impact of the approach through participatory action research and knowledge co-production with stakeholders outside of academia, linking research with teaching and learning. Since 2021, the studio has been implementing co-creation activities in three different Nicosia neighborhoods (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

The design of a small public space in Mylou neighborhood in Latsia Municipality, (Work by Co-creation Studio UCY, 2022).

Full size image

2 Methodology

In the execution of this research and the attainment of its objectives, Participatory Action Research (PAR) is employed. Its participatory nature allows all involved stakeholders, to actively contribute to knowledge production, and its cyclical development, characterized by iterative phases of planning, action, observation, and reflection that bridge theory with practice, fosters continuous improvement and change [25]. Educators-researchers engage in a form of “self-reflective teaching” with the overarching goal of fostering improvement and change [26]. The reflective framework and cyclical nature of continuous improvement and review establish meaningful connections between research findings and practical educational applications. The implementation of this research unfolds in three consecutive phases-cycles of exploration (2021–2023). Each phase-cycle is grounded in the theoretical framework and methodology of Urban Living Labs [27, 28], as well as in the iterative cycle of action research proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart [29], consisting of four main stages: framework design, implementation, co-evaluation, and reflection and re-design (Fig. 2). Anything occurring during the framework implementation is fluid, non-linear, and susceptible to changes, primarily following a non-linear three-stage process without clear boundaries: a) Co-identification stage: Co-assessing and understanding the existing situation, identifying issues or needs; b) Co-creation stage: Co-development and co-selection of solutions and scenarios; c) Co-design and implementation stage: Implementation of the optimal solutions are implemented in the agreed form, scale, and degree of implementation.

The first phase of research is embedded in the 2nd-year architectural design studio at the University of Cyprus during the Spring Semester of 2021, involving 28 s-year architecture students. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the studio is exclusively conducted online. The thematic focus centers on contemporary living concepts, including “collective housing,” “cohabitation,” and “sharing,” explored in Pallouriotissa, Nicosia. The second phase unfolds in the Spring Semester of 2022, with 30 s-year students and a summer workshop in June 2022 involving 32 participants. The emphasis remains on “collective housing” and “sharing” in residential and public spaces. Students are tasked with designing collective housing forms in specific plots within a Latsia Municipality neighborhood, Nicosia, near a small public space. Detailed planning of the public space occurs during the summer workshop, alongside the implementation and evaluation of specific constructions with the support of the University of Cyprus Fab Lab. In the third phase, during the Spring Semester of 2023, 29 s-year students participate. Concurrently, a Spring course engages 20 students (third-year and fourth-year). This phase critically explores “collective housing” and “sharing” within the neighborhood, examining the school’s role and its relationship with housing in Latsia Municipality, Nicosia, adjacent to the Latsia Lyceum. Parallel groups in the studio develop ideas for collective housing, while the students of the parallel course are tasked to design a structure in the schoolyard as a connecting link with the neighborhood. Both courses are followed by a summer workshop in June 2023, involving 21 participants, implementing one of the proposals for construction in the schoolyard with the assistance of the University of Cyprus Fab Lab.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

© Panayi Christina, UCY Library, 2023).

The circular methodology of the Co-creation Studio, consisting of four phases: design, implementation, co-evaluation, reflection, and re-design (

Full size image

Co-evaluation and reflection process takes place simultaneously with the implementation and is structured around three key axes: a) evaluation of the structure and methodology of the studio as a teaching and learning process and a co-creation process; b) evaluation of the impact of the pedagogical approach on the students (skill development, learning outcomes, motivations, experiences, attitude towards their future professional role) and the design outcome; c) evaluation of participatory action research as a methodology for co-creation of knowledge. Data collection and analysis aims at yielding insights into the entire co-creation process, its effects on the various stakeholders involved, and the overall effectiveness of the pedagogical framework. The co-evaluation process involves data collection from the educators-researchers, students, and other stakeholders (e.g., citizens). Students participate in focused group discussions held at specific moments during the process to capture emotions, thoughts, and informal opinions. They are also required to respond to specific questionnaires, typically before and after each course, focusing on their motivations, experiences, roles in the process, self-reflection of the design outcome, skill development, and achievement of learning outcomes. Students also take part in semi-structured interviews, primarily consisting of open-ended questions, aiming to record emotions and spontaneous reactions. During the interviews, they are asked to comment on their overall experience, the design outcome, their gains, recommendations for future improvements regarding the learning process, and their general thoughts and ideas. The educators-researchers continually monitor the process to document students’ spontaneous behaviors and reactions, collecting data through observation and recording them in a reflective diary. Additionally, continuous evaluation of the design outcomes delivered by students occurs through individual tasks and presentations at regular intervals. Lastly, the participating stakeholders are interviewed, expressing their opinions on their experience and gains and evaluating their involvement in the process. They also play an active role in assessing the design outcome through interviews and their participation in intermediate or final presentations.

Both the data collection tools and the overall process of co-evaluation are adapted to each semester’s program, learning objectives, and the students’ potential. The validity of the data is ensured to a considerable extent through triangulation, both in terms of using different tools and collecting data from different sources. The data are qualitatively analyzing, aiming to identify common elements within each of the three axes. After the second year of implementation, to confirm hypotheses and identify any recurring patterns over the years, the analysis also aims to find horizontal connections and correlations between the years in each axis. Finally, the analysis method also aims to identify correlations between the three axes.

3 Co-creating Knowledge Over These Three years of Research

Several outcomes about the co-creation framework as a participation, teaching, and learning process, its impact on students, and the design result(s) have emerged incrementally over the three years of research, with the process being updated through improvement actions from year to year. The outcomes of 2023 are still ongoing and have not been completed. Some of the most important ones are summarized below, concerning students’ attitudes toward their role as future architects, their perspectives on urban commons and architecture’s social responsibility, their gains and motivation, as well as the researcher’s/ tutor’s role.

Students’ exposure to real-life settings and engagement with other people enabled them to explore their role in a diverse team and view negotiation and conflict as opportunities for productive and fruitful discussion. Throughout the process, students often changed their roles, from passive listeners to discussants, leaders, and negotiators, learning to use arguments to defend their point of view. They also started to explore the multiplicity of the roles of the professional (architect, urban planner), understanding the complexity of urban environments and urban actors. Interestingly, when students were asked about how they perceive the role of the architect in contemporary urban processes and consequently their own role as future professionals, the answers varied considerably. Several students viewed the architect as needing to have a central role in the design process(es), leading the discussions and developing the design vision based on the input from prospective users. Others perceive the architect’s role as that of a mediator, someone who facilitates the design and co-creation processes and is in continuous negotiation with the involved stakeholders. Few saw the role of the architect as that of an ally to local communities, emphasizing the importance of enabling community-engaged or community-initiated processes and mildly highlighting the political aspect of a co-created urban development (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Designing and implementing a meeting place in Latsia High School yard (Photos by Effrosyni Roussou, 2023).

Full size image

Regarding urban commons, the majority of the participating students stated that they recognise their value as a way to counter the high individualisation of contemporary societies. They regard positively the potential of the urban commons to foster social and environmental values as well as create mutual learning hubs for communities. Their own role, as many of the students highlighted, is to be active both as citizens and architects and act as “a unifying force” between the various stakeholders.

From 2022 onward, additional (optional) design and build activities were introduced as intensive summer workshops, the built outcomes of which would then be handed over to the communities that participated in their conceptualisation during the semester. Through these activities, students were exposed to the complicated world of architecture’s interdependencies; from material costs and delivery times to navigating design for 1:1 scale, they were able to realize the complex and volatile chain of actions necessary to transition from paper to reality. Through hands-on, building activities, they were able to empathize with and acknowledge the contribution of those involved in a construction process (construction workers, engineers, material suppliers, etc.), have increased commitment in the process, and exhibit aspects of increased collaboration, communication, and self-organization, anchored in the belief that they are working on something meaningful but also in the joy stemming from playful creation.

Regarding the researcher’s/ tutor’s role, the inherent reflexivity of the action research process and, in this case, the double role of educators as researchers led to personal changes, re-evaluations of the individual pedagogical practices, and positioning towards the students, as well as -ultimately- to personal growth. The tutor’s role is thus under question in terms of how intrusive it can be, the amount of advice or support it can provide, and the ways that reviewing and assessment can take place in such a co-creative approach.

4 Discussion

Live pedagogies offer the opportunity to transcend the boundaries of the classrooms and consequently reconfigure the predefined hierarchies of teacher-student. In processes of co-creation and design and build, the clear boundaries between learner and teacher, as well as the clearly defined “roles” and behavioral “etiquette”, are more easily blurred. This allows for instances of informality and sharing to permeate the process, which create bonds of trust and cooperation and ultimately engage both students and tutors as whole-people in a nurturing and caring learning environment. The disparity in the students’ responses in regards to their perception of the role of the architect in contemporary urban development processes is indicative of the limits of “isolated” pedagogical efforts. In order for meaningful and profound change to occur in students’ attitudes and perceptions, one course or studio will likely not be enough. What is needed is broader collaboration between the teaching staff, aligning agendas and complementing topics and methodologies, as well as collectively trying to expand beyond disciplinary boundaries both academic and non-academic partners.

Finally, architecture schools need to become active stakeholders and actors in urban processes as hubs of knowledge and experimentation that open up new possibilities and visions. Both research and pedagogy can and should have a tangible social impact that is substantial for communities and people. The social and political dimensions of architecture should be at the forefront, highlighting the need for a socially sustainable, community-engaged and politically aware design practice that could counteract the deregulatory dominance of the global market. In this manner, the participation of communities and actors beyond academia in architectural research and pedagogy is significant, involving civil society in conceptualizing and structuring the research process and knowledge co-production. Establishing and maintaining long-term relationships between academic institutions, governing organizations, and civil society for urban decision-making can be transformative for all participants and the city, cultivating a sense of responsibility for urban living environments. Thus, the city may be viewed as a change agent for the university (research and education), while the university can be viewed as a change agent for the city [24].