Project Management in Urban Design

Basics

Intro

Teaser: Basics
Theoretical-conceptual basics

Modes of Play

Coming into Play

Motive
Mobilising the brief
Lists
Processing Contingency
Coming into Play
Moving Fences

Play?

State of the art in research

How to Play

Preliminary Practice
Refining the Question
Intervene

Play

Doing

Baseline Survey
Organizing Agencies
Mini Golf

Reflecting

Importing Knowledge
Reflecting
Project Management

Recording

Making Videos
Notations

Displaying

Research Wall
Closing Ceremony

Understanding the Play

Moving beyond the question
Propositions in archives
A matter of re-assembling
Reflective Review: Begegnen

Project Closure

Project Closure

Repository

Sort by:

Entry date Issue date Category

Filter by: All (36)
–
–

Category: conception (15×) description (8×) manual (4×) reference (5×) synthesis (3×)
Contributors: Alexander Römer (2×) Andreas Meichner (1×) Anna Richter (3×) Anna-Sophie Seum (4×) Annika Bauer (3×) Atena Mahjoub (1×) Bernd Kniess (5×) Christopher Dell (4×) Diana Schäffer (4×) Dominique Peck (19×) Flora Fessler (2×) Franziska Dehm (1×) Johannes Schöckle (4×) Juliane Bötel (3×) Kirsten Plöhn (2×) Lena Enne (5×) Maja Momic (1×) Mareike Oberheim (4×) Marian Rudhart (3×) Marie Therese Jakoubek (1×) Marius Töpfer (1×) Milena Stoldt (1×) Negin Jahangiri (4×) Nina Manz (1×) Olena Pudova (3×) Pascal Scheffer (1×) Rebecca Wall (2×) Ronja Scholz (4×) Tomma Groth (1×) Yohanna Bund (1×)
Keywords: "Projects" (5×) action (1×) Communication (1×) Design (3×) Dokumentation (7×) Expertinnen des Alltags (1×) matters of form (3×) medium (4×) Minimal Structure (1×) notation (3×) planning (2×) problematisation (1×) Rothenburgsort (1×) stadtteilöffentlich (1×) Uncertainty (1×)

Dominique Peck has joined the Research and Teaching Programme Urban Design’s academic staff at HafenCity University in 2015. Being a UD alumni, his work has a focus on project management, design development and transposing formats in research, teaching and practice. Dominique was co-project managing the live project Building a Proposition for Future Activities and is now focused on his PhD Project Re-positioning Project Management in Urban Design.

Bernd Kniess is an architect and urban planner. Since 2008 he is Professor for Urban Design at HafenCity Universität Hamburg where he established the Master Programme Urban Design. He is interested in the negotiation of the contemporary city, whose planning principles he aims to diagrammatically describe and transfer into a relational practice as procedure.

Public space is where public life unfolds!
Stadtteilbeirat Rothenburgsort
Issues
The evening before
Exposé
Unbuilding
The Community of Deconstruction
From disciplines to disciplining
Learning from Las Vegas
Everyday Urbanism
Urban Design
Administered World
Open Form
Project Archaeology
Facilitate Uncertainty
Rules of Play
Workshop: Infrastructure
Cooperative Review Process
Project Days
Planänderung
Mediators
Conception
Interviews
Coproduction
Reflective Review
Performance
Talking Billebogen Atlas
Talking Stadteingang Elbbrücken
21. Situationen Rothenburgsort
Annäherungen an was?
Tod dem Projekt! Lang lebe der systemische Wandel
New Commons for Europe
Allesandersplatz
Die Stadt als offene Partitur
Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move

Play

Building a Proposition for Future Activities

Transposition 1: Project vs. Project Days
Transposition 2: Project Days vs. Planning Competition
Transposition 3: Planning Competition vs. Jury
Transposition 7: Completion of service phase 2 vs. Project Execution
References
HCU
HOOU
Imprint
Coproduction
Column A
Mijatovic, Marko. 2017. Notations on site. Basics: Project Management in Urban Design. Hamburg. CC BY-SA 4.0.

The problematisation of the urban through its use often leads trough the banal or the trivial. Michel Foucault (2015) noted in his text Subject and Power in reference to the operative role of philosophy in contemporary politics that banal facts, known to everyone, are still facts. 'And if you're dealing with trivial facts, you have to figure out - or at least try to figure out - which exceptional and possibly very specific problems are involved (ibid., 83).' The video below shows participants of the summer school Building a Proposition for Future Activities during the dismantling of the large tent in which the Project Days and the Cooperative Review Process took place. Although this scene is a side stage and covers nothing more than 3 people beating a carpet properly, a motivated description of the situation can be prolific for further project management work. In particular so, because project management more often than not is a multisited practice: project management work is effective on construction sites, in boardrooms and behind a computer among others. The transposition of aspects over various sites of project management work has influences on the realisation of the entire project or a series of projects. “About Column A” features a conceptual practice about “coproduction” related to the problematisation of the urban through its use.

About column A

Today’s foundational conceptualisation of coproduction was developed by a group of researchers at Indiana University and The University of North Carolina in the late 1970s. The group’s work aimed to better understand increasing crime rates in Chicago after police officers policing neighbourhoods were displaced from walking the sidewalks to behind the steering wheels of police cars. “Coproduction involves a mixing of the productive efforts of regular and consumer producers” (Parks et al. 1981, 1002). The pertinent aspect opening up the issue of coproduction is the research group’s notion that coproduction is often overlooked or met with turned up noses by “regular” service providers – organised bureaus and firms and public administrators – yet attributed an increasing importance “due to fiscal pressures and partly due to evidence regarding the inefficacy of their own unaided efforts (ibid., 1001).” Policing is not without reason the main topic in the 1970s study. A rising number of neighbourhood watch groups, corruption and myopic policing strategies sparked a general debate on cities and crime in the United States and the transformation of urban governance in what later would be described as the early days and sites of neoliberalisation. In today’s words: The research group argued for a situational analysis of urban governance focusing on relations across hypothetical dichotomies in order to build problem solving approaches from there rather than based on simplistic models.

Among them was later Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom, who continued to reflect on the issue in her scholarly activities. Her revised concept refers to coproduction as the “process through which inputs used to produce a good or service are contributed by individuals who are not ‘in’ the same organization” (Ostrom 1996, 1073). This concept met harsh criticisms from public administration purists – mainly because between the lines, Ostrom’s work seeks to uncover that purity in the understanding of economic action between public and private, market and state or government and civil society is counterproductive if not violent. She kept insisting that removing artificial walls surrounding (false) dichotomies with the aim of changing the views of social sciences towards the hypothetical “Great Divide” was in fact necessary in order to draw a more complex picture of the actual events. Ostrom empirically analyses the realisation processes of major social and technical infrastructure projects with a focus on coproduction as capacity to constructively process operational challenges. “No market can survive without extensive public goods provided by governmental agencies. No government can be efficient and equitable without considerable input from citizens. Synergetic outcomes can be fostered to a much greater extent than our academic barriers have let us contemplate” (Ostrom 1996, 1083). Ostrom’s late work on the management of commons frequently revisits the early work on coproduction with the aim to organise the interplay of a heterogenous set of actors through a variety of means. Her work is commonly part of research, teaching and practice projects in spatial and infrastructure planning, amongst others. There, problematising coproduction promises to re-gain an apparently disappearing knowledge of how the actual events (ought to) unfold in space. In urban development, increasing complexity on a number of levels and dimensions (such as planning and building as well as environmental laws, institutional actors and their inter-relations and responsibilities, construction techniques, compartmentalisation) is diagnosed as loss of control and of overview, leading to the perception of a crisis of the planning and designing disciplines (Zimmermann 2017). However, a loss of control and overview only appears from the perspectivation of the actual events through well-established nominal responsibilities. Are there cases of Ostrom’s original problematisation of coproduction in architectural education? Is there a similar “Great Divide” hypothetically and in fact drawing the line between what is possible and what is not?

Metadata
Issue date: 09/20/2018
Entry date: 10/06/2020
Contributors: Dominique Peck
Keywords: problematisation
pdf
Related Content
  • Transposition 1: Project vs. Project Days
  • Transposition 3: Planning Competition vs. Jury
References

Ostrom, Elinor. 1996. “Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development.” World Development 24 (6): 1073–87.
Parks, Roger B., Paula C. Baker, Larry Kiser, Ronald Oakerson, Elinor Ostrom, Vincent Ostrom, Stephen L. Percy, Martha B. Vandivort, Gordon P. Whitaker, und Rick Wilson. 1981. “Consumers as Coproducers of Public Services: Some Economic and Institutional Considerations.” Policy Studies Journal 9 (7): 1001–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x.
Zimmermann, Karsten. 2017. Relevanz, Wandel und Anforderungen wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung in der Raumplanung. disP - The Planning Review 53, Nr. 4 (2. October): 21–32. doi:10.1080/02513625.2017.1414478, .