1. Selforganization in urban regeneration Ingmar van Meerkerk (EUR)
Beitske Boonstra (TNO)
Jurian Edelenbos (EUR)

2. Introduction Urban regeneration by self-organizing stakeholders
Two case studies:
Caterham Barracks
BID Birmingham

3. Introduction
Relationship vigorous urban regeneration processes and self-organization
Vigorous urban regeneration processes: the jointly and collaboratively development of problem definition and problem solution of local actors in response to urban issues.
In what ways do self-organizing processes evolve in relation to vigorous urban regeneration processes, and which conditions facilitate these processes?

4. Framing self-organization
Self-organization as the emergence of new structures out of local interaction (e.g. Cilliers, 1998; Heylighen, 2002; Jantsch, 1980)
Confrontation between stakeholders initiatives and existing institutional context could lead to new structures by which vigorous urban regeneration processes evolve and emerge.
Sometimes these initiatives evolve into a sustainable form, however often they do not (e.g. Edelenbos, 2005)
When do this self-organizing processes lead to vigorous urban regeneration?

5. Two forms of self-organization
Dissipative
‘system openness’ and highly dynamic, far-from-equilibrium situations, leading to (unpredictable) developments (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984; Heylighen, 2002; Morçöl, 2005)
Behaviour of actors
External orientation
- open boundaries, looking for exposure
- wide orientation, exploring new content, involving and connecting a large number of actors
Autopoietic
‘system closure’, self-maintenance and reproduction of systems (Jantsch, 1980; Maturana & Varela, 1980)
Internal orientation
- closed boundaries, internal identity is strengthened
- narrow orientation, explicating and consolidating content, stabilizing/ reducing the number of involved actors

6. Two forms of self-organization
Both Dissipative and Autopoietic behaviour is needed for a system to survive, but at the same time evolve and adapt to new circumstances.

7. Case study 1: Caterham Barracks
Closing the Barracks had impact on the local economy and character of the area. Redevelopment of the site is a chance to create new vitality for the area. Local residents play a key role in this process.

8. Analysis Caterham Barracks
Time frame
Dissipative characteristics
Autopoietic characteristics
Phase 1 ( ): Redefining the Barracks
Exploration of meaning of Barracks for the local community;
Open process, lot of actors
Explication of what should be maintained
Stabilization of involvement of the Local Group
Phase 2 (1998): Plans for redevelopment
Explorative planning process
Connection between Local Group, private developer, local community and local authority.
‘Selection’ of ideas for community facilities and future management organized by Local Group
Phase 3 ( ): Emerging governance structure
Emergence of cooperation structure between Local Group, private developer and local authority;
Intensive interactions between main actors
Refinement of plans towards implementation
Formalization of arrangements between main actors: dividing responsibilities
Establishment of Community Trust
Phase 4 ( ): The Community Trust in action
Community Trust is looking for exposure: it seeks for sustainable user groups for running community facilities.
Decreasing interactions
Increasing internal orientation:

9. Case study 2: BID Birmingham
Nuisance of the night time economy affects the local economy and character of the area. Local business took the lead in establishing a BID, to counter the controversy and make Broad Street “cleaner, brighter and safer”.

10. Analysis BID Birmingham
Time frame
Dissipative characteristics
Autopoietic characteristics
Phase 1 (1991 – 2003):
Growing controversies
Internal identity is weakened.
After the fight, exploration of possibilities to dealing with the controversy.
External identity is strengthened by Convention Quarter. Narrow boundaries.
Phase 2 (2003 – 2004):
Establishing the BID
Open, explorative and informal explorations for solutions; Connection to BID legislation; Involvement of more businesses; Exposure.
Shared responsibility and interest among the different users and stakeholders. Defining the BID: content, boundaries and involved actors are defined. Formalization of the BID
Phase 3 (2004 – 2009):
Proving the BID
Exposure to the BID through newsletter and website, in order to attract new investments and to establish a positive reputation for the area.
Stabilized interactions between defined group of actors. Responsibilities are divided.
Executing projects, strengthening internal organisation.
Phase 4 (2009 – 2010):
Expanding the network
Exploration of new content, involvement of new actors in BID2
Maintenance of structure in the BID2 proposal

11. Conclusions & discussion
Both cases are examples of durable and vital urban regeneration by self-organization of local stakeholders.
The self-organization evolved through a strong interplay between autopoietic and dissipative behaviour

12. Conclusions & discussion
Four comparative conditions:
Threatening developments regarding the identity of the urban system triggered the self-organization
Key individuals/actors which were able and willing to connect different levels and spheres (public, private, societal)
Flexibility of dominant actors in urban regeneration to adapt to new circumstances
Dominant structures that are flexible and non-prescriptive enough to enhance local conditions.

13. Selforganization in urban regeneration Thank you!
Ingmar van Meerkerk (EUR) –
Beitske Boonstra (TNO) –
Jurian Edelenbos (EUR)