Copenhagen is idolised by many for its inclusive and innovative urban fabric. Across the world, government officials are trying to “copenhagenise” their cities. In the 1990s, the city pledged to build a city by and for the people, realising that complex issues required innovation that could only be brought about by collaboration across sectors, by building bridges between top-down government initiatives and bottom-up grassroots initiatives. It promised to say “Yes, and…” to citizen-led projects, rather than “no.” And the possibilities soon became endless.
There’s GivRum, whose first project transformed an old laquer factory into a self-organised working hub of over 100 creative practitioners called Prags Boulevard 43. It became such a resource for the area that the city recognized its potential – using it as a “precedent project” in the city’s strategy. With the mission to practice collaborative urban development, GivRum is now an established consultant for city projects that focuses on activating buildings by bringing together diverse stakeholders to create a user-generated place, and the community to build and sustain it.
And then there’s Øen and Containerby. Both noticed unused, derelict spaces and the city gave them the opportunity to activate them, for free – and all they had to do was ask. In exchange, the city benefits too as dead spaces are replaced with community assets. Øen turned a vacant house into a public art space, with gardens outside. Containerby is run by Bureau Detours, an organisation that develops social and experimental public spaces. In this case, trusted already by the local municipality, they were funded to turn a strip of land next to elevated railway tracks, derelict for years, into a container city. Operating with a flexible, user-driven structure, the 13 shipping containers on the site are at the moment a fablab, music studio, bikeshop, greenhouse, kitchen, and more.
Now there are a few disclaimers, before we all go off wishing we were like Copenhagen.
There are risks: are these citizens being ‘used’ by the government to provide services? Or is it just thought of as their contribution to their own city? And moreover, Copenhagen isn’t perfect. It took a long time to get to this stage, and still has a ways to go, as certain local governments are more enabling than others, the national government is still full of red tape, and there is still a need for more formal and flexible structures to connect the top-down to the bottom-up initiatives.
Where does Dublin sit in this? Can co-creation and citizen-led initiatives be integrated into our city fabric?
We have to recognise that Dublin has a very different story than Copenhagen; from our vastly different histories to our vastly different government structures. Copenhagen’s municipal government is very powerful, with a very decentralised and very localised set-up, hinging on collaboration incentivised by their “mini-mayor” system (akin to mixed-party cabinet). Replication is impossible, but there is precedent for collaborative development in Dublin – from Start-Up City to Designing Dublin to Hidden Rooms, and now there seems to be more of a push with the Public Participation Network beginning and Framework project from Pivot Dublin. However, these initiatives come from the top-down and reach out to the public, a slightly different pattern than in Copenhagen, where the idea starts on the ground and then is enabled by the government. As Dr. Annika Agger, co-creation researcher at Roskilde University points out, “Politicians and managers must dare to give up some control and deviate from familiar routines. On the other hand, citizens must get used to not only be demanding customers in the welfare shop, but they also need to take part of the responsibility.”
You can find out more about Connect The Dots at connectthedots.ie
