Self-organisation by Community Based Networks 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Self-organisation by Community Based Networks And how they engage and challenge planning Beitske Boonstra Msc.

Complexity and Participatory planning 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Complexity and Participatory planning Complexity in society and planning: governance Participatory planning – governments stay in control Through inclusionary processes (process, content, place) Only those that ‘fit’ join such procedures – no multiplicity (Pløger 2000, Frissen 2007, De Graaf 2007, Van der Arend 2007) Community based networks All actors plan in space, spaces as multiplicities Struggles over ‘reading’ – heterogenous processes of becoming (Kreukels 1985, Murdoch 2006, Hillier 2007, Boelens 2009) (Arnstein 1969)

Self-organisation translated (1) 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Self-organisation translated (1) Community based networks of civic actors aiming at spatial interventions but operating autonomous from governmental planning procedures … … framed as self-organisation … … the emergence of structure out of fairly unstructured beginnings. (Teisman et al. 2009, Heylighen 2001, Cilliers 1998) Towards a notion of a variety of simulatenously planning systems, in which no actor can oversee all the dynamics taking place.

Self-organisation translated (2) 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Self-organisation translated (2) But what is a SYSTEM? Self-organisation: The emergence of structure from fairly unstructured beginnings (Heylighen 2001, Cilliers 1998) No central or external agent Distributed control - Open and dynamic boundaries Actor-network Theory: Key uncertainties in the study of networks and organisation (Latour 2005) Action is overtaken No groups, only group formation - Objects too have agency

Self-organisation translated (3) 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Self-organisation translated (3) How a system evolves from fairly unstructured beginnings towards organisation, can be studied by following the … … controversies and associations … … that make the actor-network / system ‘happen’. It also shows what associations and controversies arise between these self-organised actor-networks and spatial planning practice.

Operational framework (1) 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Operational framework (1) BIDs in the UK Co-Housing in Denmark Democratically legitimated business-led organisation aiming to improve its business environment, with targeted and ring-fenced investments additional to public services. People that collectively commission, develop and maintain their direct living environments, often paired with collective ownership, communal living and democratic organisation.

Operational framework (2) 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Operational framework (2) Emergence of organisation Self-organised networks Dispersed control No central agent Dynamic boundaries Actor-networks Controversies Associations Challenge to planning

Business Improvement Districts (1) 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Business Improvement Districts (1) The emergence of organisation

Business Improvement Districts (2) 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Business Improvement Districts (2) Associations and controversies Leading actors have to have an interest, businesses have final say, boundaries are clearly defined. Associations between local business interests, recent local developments or events, national legislation and policy goals set by local government. Controversies concern objects of mutual interest, such as quality of business environments and public space. Discussions on ‘retrenchement’ and ‘privatization’ – or polycentric governance?

Co-Housing (1) The emergence of organisation 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Co-Housing (1) The emergence of organisation Andelsbolig Law Right-to-buy Law End of funding Housing Law Social housing Funding Schemes Urban regeneration 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Private cooperatives Increase of Andelsbolig Workers associations Bofælleskaber Eco-communities network

Co-Housing (2) Associations and controversies (1) 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Co-Housing (2) Associations and controversies (1) Leading actors are end-users (internal), there is either organisational history or extensive networking, however the association with external actors is determinative as well, as is cooperative law. Co-housing is formed by internal and external deliberations about location (geographical), ownership and financing (organisation) and ambitions (content). Search for mutual benefits.

Co-Housing (3) Associations and controversies (2) 30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Co-Housing (3) Associations and controversies (2) Ownership structure in Danish cities changed urban renewal practice (which is based on co-financing of public and private funds). Spin off through sustainability policies and better process management. Long standing association between bofaelleskaber and andelsboligforeningen, however this changes due to new regulations. Communities are exclusive. Initiatives have to line up with the regular planning system. Mutual learning process.

30 April 2011 9th meeting AESOP Thematic group Complexity and Planning, Istanbul. Discussion For both participation and self-organisation one has to become ‘professional’ – and line up with the existing planning system. Both participation and self-organisation are processes of in/ex-clusion, though in self-organisation the end-users are leading and decisive. Legislation does not unleash self-organised capacity, but enables the emergence of organisation and partnerships to evolve. Does this make participation redundant? Dispersed control is only temporary until new centralities emerge.