Placemaking: Creating Connections or Widening Gaps?

Can placemaking truly foster connection, or does it risk reinforcing exclusion and displacement? Public spaces are meant to bring people together, yet placemaking can be a contested practice—sometimes empowering communities, other times accelerating urban changes that marginalise them. This newsletter explores the different forms of placemaking and the tensions between community-driven transformation and speculative development.

In this first edition of the Cooperative City newsletter, we bring you three articles that highlight different approaches to placemaking:

First, “Placemaking’s Dilemma: Creating Connections or Widening Gaps?” examines three key approaches to placemaking: Strategic placemaking, which aims to attract investment and affluent newcomers but risks driving gentrification; Critical placemaking, which focuses on grassroots activism and social justice to reclaim public space for local communities; and Tactical placemaking, which uses small, cost-effective interventions to create immediate improvements that can lead to lasting change.

Next, “Urban Swimming: Reviving the Donaukanal as a Public Space” explores a grassroots movement in Vienna that is challenging perceptions of public space by reclaiming the Donaukanal for swimming. Through community engagement and urban activism, residents are redefining access to blue spaces in the city.

Finally, “Reclaiming Public Space Through Tactical Urbanism: Milan’s Piazze Aperte Programme” presents a highly successful example of tactical placemaking. Milan has transformed underutilised and car-dominated streets into thriving public spaces using quick, reversible interventions. By engaging communities and allowing for experimentation, the city has made placemaking a flexible and effective tool for urban transformation.

As cities adapt to cultural, economic, and social challenges, how can placemaking foster inclusion rather than displacement? What role should local communities play in shaping their public spaces? Join us as we explore these placemaking trends and dilemmas.

PLACEMAKING’S DILEMMA: CREATING CONNECTIONS OR WIDENING GAPS?

What makes a public space truly belong to the people who use it? Can design empower communities or does it risk excluding them? Is placemaking a tool for transformation – or for gentrification? Eutropian’s Jorge Mosquera explores the different approaches to the concept of placemaking to highlight critical challenges and opportunities for change and social inclusion.

These questions sit at the heart of placemaking, an approach to urban design that emphasises how people interact within spaces rather than focusing solely on the built environment. Since its emergence in the 1970s, it has grown into much more than just beautifying public areas. In North America, organisations like Project for Public Spaces have collaborated with communities to enhance public spaces through small-scale projects and activities. This hands-on approach has redefined placemaking – not just as a way to improve physical spaces, but as a participatory process that actively involves local stakeholders and fosters inclusive decision-making. Yet, while principles like community connection and high-quality urban spaces seem universally positive, placemaking often navigates the murky waters of power and politics, much like other activities in the public sphere.

The increasing prominence of public spaces in urban development is closely linked to broader economic shifts transforming cities. Public spaces are often viewed as tools for attracting attention and financial investment. Moreover, despite its focus on community engagement, placemaking can sometimes drive urban changes that harm the very communities it seeks to benefit.

Placemaking: a polysemic concept

Strategic Placemaking, the intentional development of high-quality places that not only enhance the sense of community but also serve a specific purpose – attracting talented workers, affluent future residents, and future investments by creating appealing spaces (Wyckoff, 2014) – highlights a critical tension. The goal of drawing in talent will fuel job creation and economic growth might appear beneficial, but it often diverges from the foundational principles of placemaking, aligning more closely with urban branding strategies. Examples of such projects include new retail or dining hubs, public plazas for events and community gatherings, cultural or entertainment venues, or open spaces created in relation to key transportation nodes such as subway or train stations. (Lew, 2019) By prioritising economic goals over community needs, Strategic Placemaking risks driving up property values, leading to gentrification and the displacement of vulnerable populations. Long-term residents often face increased rents, rising living costs, while their voices are marginalized in the redevelopment process. ?Critics argue that this process functions as a form of “social cleansing,” where developers and artists rebrand neighborhoods in ways that prioritize new, wealthier arrivals at the expense of existing communities (Pritchard, 2019).

Despite its challenges, placemaking holds transformative potential when practiced as a bottom-up strategy. Critical placemaking, as defined by Toolis (2017), is a grassroots, collaborative process aimed at addressing social inequities and fostering social justice through the creation of inclusive, participatory, and accessible public spaces. It values the contributions of everyday people, emphasizing dialogue, empowerment, and the reclamation of public spaces for collective use. By challenging the prioritisation of economic growth over community needs, and the homogenisation of cultural identity, promoting instead a sense of agency, critical placemaking encourages civic engagement, place identity, and sociopolitical change.

Critical placemaking initiatives can take many forms, such as community gardens, public art projects, protests, or housing cooperatives – all reflecting collective efforts to challenge the ongoing reproduction of social inequalities through spatial development, strengthen communities’ resilience against external pressures, and create spaces that truly belong to their inhabitants. As an example, Pritchard (2019) describes ‘place guarding’ as “collective acts of protecting existing people and places from the ravages of neoliberalism” (p.141). In this way, critical placemaking is not just about improving urban areas; it is a means of empowering communities to take control of their futures.

Critical placemaking views design as more than just a creative exercise; it becomes a tool to bridge the gap between citizens and the authorities? that shape their daily lives (Allen & Queen, 2018). By placing diversity and accessibility at the heart of public participation in design and research, critical placemaking challenges traditional notions of democratised design and opens the process to a broader range of voices.

Finally, a more nuanced take on placemaking can be seen in Tactical Placemaking, acting as a bridge between top-down planning and grassroots, community-driven efforts. Rooted in the principles of tactical urbanism (Lydon et al., 2015) – which emphasises experimentation and public involvement – Tactical Placemaking focuses on creating high-quality public spaces through small, short-term, and cost-effective interventions. These seemingly modest actions often serve as catalysts for meaningful, long-term transformations (Toolis, 2017).

Examples of tactical placemaking include temporary and creative projects like closing streets to cars to create pedestrian and bicycle-friendly zones, turning them into pop-up playgrounds or arts and crafts markets (Lew, 2019). These initiatives bring communities together, test innovative ideas, and reimagine public spaces, all while laying the groundwork for lasting urban change.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of public spaces as communal resources, with their absence during lockdowns highlighting their critical role in fostering community life. In the post-pandemic era, tactical urbanism has gained prominence as cities grapple with cultural, economic, and social challenges, reshaping priorities around the use and governance of public spaces. Communities now increasingly view public spaces as shared assets, actively participating in their creation, reuse, and transformation. For instance, in Milan, the municipal programme Piazze Aperte repurposed underused parking and street spaces into vibrant public squares. By experimenting with temporary uses and engaging local citizens, the city gathered feedback that informed the development of a strategic framework for future urban projects, embedding citizen participation into its planning processes (Cariello, Ferorelli & Rotondo, 2021).

To sustain and expand these efforts, public authorities must focus on the social dynamics of urban spaces transformed by tactical urbanism. Recognising the transformative potential of such initiatives can pave the way for more inclusive, resilient, and community-centred cities.

Inclusive City

At Eutropian, we recognise the complexities and challenges that come with the concept of placemaking. By fostering place attachment, a sense of community, civic responsibility, and engagement, we aim to reclaim public spaces as sites of collective care and shared belonging. Our commitment lies in championing a critical approach to placemaking – one that prioritizes social justice and seeks to dismantle inequities in urban spaces. Inclusivity and equity are at the heart of our work. We strive to create projects that not only improve public spaces in the physical sense, but also ensure they are accessible and meaningful for everyone addressing physical, social, and cultural barriers to inclusion while fostering a sense of connection and belonging.

As part of the InclusiveCity (DUT) partnership, we are actively engaged in research and action to challenge the growing commercialisation of public spaces. One of our focus areas is Vienna’s Donaukanal (Danube Canal), a site that, while popular as a recreational space for young adults during spring and summer, is still largely perceived as a dividing line between districts rather than a unifying element. While the Donaukanal serves as a vibrant hub for specific groups, this comes at the expense of inclusivity, driven by the increasing commercialisation of its public spaces and the neglect of certain sections along its banks. Over the coming years, together with Superwien and Social Design, we’ll be working to build a network of stakeholders and develop activities that highlight the need to care for this area. The canal holds immense potential as a recreational and social space for diverse communities, and through thoughtful placemaking, we envision it as a vital part of Vienna’s urban fabric.

Inspired by the 15-minute city concept, we see the Donaukanal as more than a barrier –? it can become a key piece of blue space infrastructure. By integrating placemaking principles, we aim to transform the canal into a dynamic, accessible resource that connects communities, fosters social interaction, and enhances urban life.

The article is published in our online magazine Cooperative City.

REVIVING THE DONAUKANAL: TRANSFORMING PUBLIC SPACE THROUGH URBAN SWIMMING

The Schwimmverein Donaukanal (SVDK) exemplifies how social design can transform urban environments through community engagement. The initiative began as a small social design research project at the University of Applied Arts Vienna. Its goal was to explore the potential of “urban swimming culture” and to challenge perceptions of Vienna’s Danube Canal, a neglected waterway running through the centre of the city. Five years later, the project has grown into a 300-member association, reviving a long-lost swimming tradition and redefining the canal as a shared public space.

This interview with Ana Mumladze Detering, SVDK co-founder, highlights how social design principles—multidisciplinarity, participatory engagement, and activism—shaped the project. From uncovering the canal’s historical significance, including its ties to Vienna’s Jewish community, to navigating regulatory gray zones where swimming is legal but discouraged, the SVDK reflects how social design bridges policy, public art, and urbanism. We also discuss key turning points, such as organising the first officially registered swim event in nearly a century, and how collaborations with urban gardening associations, local communities, and global initiatives like the Swimmable Cities alliance are inspiring similar projects. The SVDK is not just about swimming – it’s a case study in how social design revitalises public spaces and fosters a deeper connection between people and their urban environments.

Read the article in our online magazine Cooperative City.

RECLAIMING PUBLIC SPACE THROUGH TACTICAL URBANISM: MILAN’S PIAZZE APERTE PROGRAMME

How do you transform a city when traditional public works take years and cost millions? Can small, temporary interventions create lasting change? In Milan, the Piazze Aperte ("Open Squares") programme has turned these questions into action, using tactical urbanism to reclaim public space quickly, affordably, and with direct community involvement.

Since its launch in 2018, Piazze Aperte has transformed 40 public spaces, covering more than 25,000 m2, turning car-dominated streets into lively, people-centred squares. The programme operates on a “testing and reversibility” principle—introducing low-cost interventions like street markings, bollards, and community-designed spaces to demonstrate change before making it permanent. The impact has been profound: safer streets, more vibrant neighbourhoods, and a shift from cars to people as the focus of urban design.

But the success of Piazze Aperte goes beyond design—it is about engaging communities in the transformation of their own spaces. By inviting citizens, NGOs, and businesses to co-manage and maintain these squares, Milan has proven that small, tactical interventions can become catalysts for long-term urban regeneration.

Read the full article in Coopeative City.

References for the article Placemaking Dilemma: Creating Connections or Widening Gaps?

Allen, T., & Queen, S. G. (2018). Critical Placemaking: towards a more critical engagement for participatory design in the urban environment.

Cariello, A., Ferorelli, R., & Rotondo, F. (2021). Tactical urbanism in Italy: From grassroots to institutional tool—Assessing value of public space experiments. Sustainability, 13(20), 11482.

Lew, A. A. (2019). Tourism planning and place making: place-making or placemaking?. In Tourism Planning and Development (pp. 142-160). Routledge.

Lydon, M., Garcia, A. (2015). A Tactical Urbanism How-To. In: Tactical Urbanism. Island Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-567-0_5

Pritchard, S. (2019). ‘Place guarding: Activist art against gentrification’, in Courage, C. and McKeown, A. (eds.) Creative Placemaking: Research, Theory and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.

Toolis, E. E. (2017). Theorizing critical placemaking as a tool for reclaiming public space. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(1-2), 184-199.

Wyckoff, M. (2014). Definitions of Placemaking: Four Different Types. Planning & Zoning News 32(3): 1.