Sharing and Space-Commoning Knowledge Through Urban Living Labs Across Different European Cities

Abstract

While the growing commodification of housing and public spaces in European cities is producing urban inequalities affecting mostly migrant and vulnerable populations, there are also manifold small-scale neighbourhood-based collaborative processes that seek to co-produce shared urban resources and contribute to more resilient urban developments. As part of the ProSHARE research project that investigates conditions in which <em>sharing</em> takes place and can be expanded to less-represented populations, we focus here on sharing and space-commoning practices within urban living labs. Considered multi-stakeholders sites for innovation, testing, and learning with a strong urban transformative potential, urban living labs have received increasing academic attention in recent years. However, questions related to whether and how labs facilitate processes of exchange and negotiation of knowledge claims and generate spatial knowledge remain largely unexplored. We address this gap by looking at the role urban living labs play in the regeneration of neighbourhoods, asking how sharing and space-commoning practices generate situated spatial knowledge(s) that can be used in planning processes, and what type of settings and methods can facilitate such processes. These questions are addressed in the context of four ProSHARE-Labs located in Berlin, Paris (Bagneux), London, and Vienna, drawing on a cross-case analysis of the functioning of these hubs, the research methods applied in each context, and on the translocal learning and possibilities for upscaling resulting from these parallel experiences.

Mass Housing Neighbourhoods and Urban Commons

“…In the preparatory talks it became clear that each participant had specific understanding of the issues related to the common spaces of New Belgrade Blocks, as well as different kinds of spatial and urban heritage knowledge (expert, sectoral, community, lay, and tacit knowledge). (Pfeffer et al, 2013;Petrescu et al, 2022) While expert and sectoral knowledge are prevalent in urban planning and heritage, tacit knowledge (grounded within practice), lay and community knowledge (contextembedded, community-based) often remain fragmented and disregarded in the planning processes (de Sousa Santos, 2004;Petrescu et al, 2022). Nevertheless, those types of knowledge, context-embedded and community-based, represent specific types of expertise, which is crucial for integrated planning.…”

“…Therefore, the study engaged a research methodology that explored plurality of spatial knowledge and enabled multi-stakeholders process of exchange, co-producing shared knowledge, including both common and divergent, or conflicting, views. (Petrescu et al, 2022) The stakeholder workshop, was moderated and semi-structured around five main "discussion stimuli" formulated as topics, quotes, photos or open questions (see Figure 4.3), addressing:…”

Spatial Knowledge and Urban Planning

“…While the article also discusses the generation of spatial knowledge and the negotiation of knowledge claims, it focusses on urban living labs as a methodology for these purposes. As indicated by the title "Sharing and Space-Commoning Knowledge Through Urban Living Labs Across Different European Cities," practices and experiences of sharing and space-commoning in different cities are the empirical reference of this article (Petrescu et al, 2022).…”