European public space projects with social cohesion in mind: symbolic, programmatic and minimalist approaches

References

• Academy of Urbanism. 2013. Assessments: Urbanism Awards. June 21. Accessed May 1, 2020. https://www.academyofurbanism.org.uk/gillett-square/.
   Google Scholar
• Aelbrecht, P., and Q. Stevens, eds. 2019. Public Space Design and Social Cohesion: An International Comparison. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Aga Khan Development Network. 2016. Aga Khan Award for Architecture, Superkilen: Technical information Award Cycle 2014-16.
   Google Scholar
• Akšamija, A. 2016. On Site Review Report: Superkilen. Geneva: Aga Khan Award for Architecture.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, Christopher, Murray Silverstein, and Sara Ishikawa. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Amin, A. 2002. “Ethnicity and the Multicultural City: Living with Diversity.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 34 (6): 959–980. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/a3537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216–224. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Askins, K., and R. Pain. 2011. “Contact Zones: Participation, Materiality, and the Messiness of Interaction.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29 (5): 803–821. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/d11109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagwell, S., G. Evans, A. Witting, and K. Worpole. 2012. Public Space Management: Report to Intercultural Cities Research Programme. London: Cities Institute, London Metropolitan University.
   Google Scholar
• Beebeejaun, Y. 2006. “The Participation Trap: The Limitations of Participation for Ethnic and Racial Groups.” International Planning Studies 11 (1): 3–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470600935008.
   Google Scholar
• Bhabha, H. 1994. “17 Frontlines/Borderposts.” Displacements: Cultural Identities in Question 15: 269.
   Google Scholar
• Bianchi, M. 2019. “Renewing the City through Public Participation and Cultural Activities. The Case Study of Gillet Square, a Community-Led Urban Regeneration Project.” The Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity 8 (1): 1–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.5947/jeod.2019.001.
   Google Scholar
• BIG. 2012. “Superkilen / Topotek 1 + BIG Architects + Superflex.” ArchDaily, October 25. Accessed July 10, 2020. https://www.archdaily.com/286223/superkilen-topotek-1-big-architects-superflex.
   Google Scholar
• Bridge, G., T. Butler, and L. Lees. 2012. Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth? Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buijs, F. 1998. Een moskee in de wijk. De vestiging van de Kocatepe moskee in Rotterdam-Zuid. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. 2014. “The Place-Shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process.” Journal of Urban Design 19 (1): 2–36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854695.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M., and F. Wunderlich. 2013. Capital Spaces: The Multiple Complex Public Spaces of a Global City. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cattell, V., N. Dines, W. Gesler, and S. Curtis. 2008. “Mingling, Observing, and Lingering: Everyday Public Spaces and Their Implications for Well-Being and Social Relations.” Health & Place 14: 544–561. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.10.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciuffi, V. 2013. The Park of Parks: Copenhagen’s Superkilen. Architectonic. Accessed July 10, 2020. https://www.architonic.com/en/story/valentina-ciuffi-the-park-of-parks-copenhagen-s-superkilen/7000731.
   Google Scholar
• CoE ICP (Council of Europe Intercultural Cities Program). 2016. Intercultural Cities: Good Practice Examples. Accessed January 10, 2020. https://www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/good-pratice.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, J. 2020. “Superkilen: Exploring the Human–Nonhuman Relations of Intercultural Encounter.” Journal of Urban Design 25 (1): 65–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1622409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehaene, M., and E. Vervloesem. 2011. “When Urban Design Leaves Some Room: Shifting Degrees of Indeterminacy in Rotterdam-Zuid.” OASE 85: 17–32.
   Google Scholar
• Dempsey, N. 2009. “Are Good-Quality Environments Socially Cohesive? Measuring Quality and Cohesion in Urban Neighbourhoods.” Town Planning Review 80: 315–345. doi:https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.80.3.5.
   Google Scholar
• Divisare. 2008. OKRA Landschapsarchitecten: Rotterdam Afrikaanderplein. December 5. Accessed January 10, 2020. https://divisare.com/projects/81518-okra-landschapsarchitecten-ben-ter-mull-rotterdam-afrikaanderplein.
   Google Scholar
• Doucet, B. 2009. “Living through Gentrification: Subjective Experiences of Local, Non-Gentrifying Residents in Leith, Edinburgh.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 24: 299–315. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-009-9151-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doucet, B., and D. Koenders. 2018. “‘At Least It’s Not a Ghetto Anymore’: Experiencing Gentrification and ‘False Choice Urbanism’ in Rotterdam’s Afrikaanderwijk.” Urban Studies 55 (16): 3631–3649. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018761853.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dovey, K., and S. Dickson. 2002. “Architecture and Freedom? Programmatic Innovation in the Work of Koolhaas/OMA.” Journal of Architectural Education 56 (1): 5–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/104648802321019128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2020. EU Policy on the Urban Environment – Overview. January 29. Accessed March 1, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/index_en.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Franck, K., and Q. Stevens. 2007. Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. 1990. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text 25/26: 56–80. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/466240.
   Google Scholar
• Friedkin, N. 2004. “Social Cohesion.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 409–425. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fulcher, M. 2011. London Riots: Regeneration on Fire. Accessed August 1, 2019. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/arches/london-ridge-regeneration-on-fire.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1963. Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greater London Authority. 2002. Making Space for Londoners. p. 35.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, E. 2001. Architecture from the Outside: Essays on Virtual and Real Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Henning, C., and M. Lieberg. 1996. “Strong Ties or Weak Ties? Neighbourhood Networks in a New Perspective.” Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 13 (1): 3–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, C., A. Clark, J. Katz, and S. Peace. 2007. Social Interactions in Urban Public Places. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hou, J., ed. 2010. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ingels, B. 2009. Yes is More. More, Special Issue 1. MAS Context. Accessed August 1, 2019. https://mascontext.com/pdf/MAS_Context_Issue01_MORE.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. 1964. The Death and Life of Great American Cities London.
   Google Scholar
• Jenson, J. 1998. Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of Canadian Research (pp. 109-28). Ottawa: Canadian policy research networks.
   Google Scholar
• Kattein, J. 2018. “MacEwen Awards 2019: Gillett Square’s Sociable Freedom.” RIBA Journal, November 2. Accessed August 1, 2019. https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/my-macewen-2019-jan-kattein-gillett-square-dalston-london-less-design-is-more-sociable-freedom.
   Google Scholar
• Kearns, A., and R. Forrest. 2000. “Social Cohesion and Multilevel Urban Governance.” Urban Studies 37 (5-6): 995–1017. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980050011208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koolhaas, R., and B. Mau. 1998. S, M, L, XL. New York: The Monacelli Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, S., and G. Martin. 2004. “A Case for Culturally Responsive Urban Design.” Ontario Planning Journal 19 (5): 5–7.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, D., and S. Low. 1990. “The Built Environment and Spatial Form.” Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 453–505. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.002321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lien, C., and J. Hou. 2019. “Open Green: Placemaking Beyond Placebound Communities in Taipei.” In Public Space Design and Social Cohesion, edited by P. Aelbrecht, and Q. Stevens, 178–196. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lofland, L. 1998. The Public Realm: Quintessential City Life. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Loukaitou-Sideris, A. 1995. “Urban Form and Social Context: Cultural Differentiation in the Uses of Urban Parks.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 14 (2): 89–102. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Low, S., D. Taplin, and S. Scheld. 2005. Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural Diversity. Texas: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lownsbrough, H., and J. Beunderman. 2007. Equally Spaced?: Public Space and Interaction Between Diverse Communities: a Report for the Commission for Racial Equality. London: Demos.
   Google Scholar
• Macarthur, J. 2002. “The Look of the Object: Minimalism in Art and Architecture, Then and Now.” Architectural Theory Review 7 (1): 137–148. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13264820209478450.
   Google Scholar
• Madanipour, A. 2003. Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mayblin, L., G. Valentine, F. Kossak, and T. Schneider. 2015. “Experimenting with Spaces of Encounter: Creative Interventions to Develop Meaningful Contact.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 63: 67–80. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta, V. 2014. “Evaluating Public Space.” Journal of Urban design 19 (1): 53–88.
   Google Scholar
• Miljacki, A., A. Lawrence, and A. Schafer. 2006. “2 Architects 10 Questions on Program: Rem Koolhaas+ Bernard Tschumi.” Praxis 8: 6–15.
   Google Scholar
• Modood, T. 2007. Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea. Cambridge: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J. 2009. “Symbolic Representation in Public Space: Capital Cities, Presence and Memory.” Representation 45 (1): 1–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00344890802709781.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, K., B. Elands, and A. Buijs. 2010. “Social Interactions in Urban Parks: Stimulating Social Cohesion?” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9: 93–100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. 2017. “Living with Difference in Hyper-Diverse Areas: How Important Are Encounters in Semi-Public Spaces?” Social & Cultural Geography 18 (8): 1067–1085. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2016.1210667.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piekut, A., and G. Valentine. 2017. “Spaces of Encounter and Attitudes towards Difference: A Comparative Study of Two European Cities.” Social Science Research 62: 175–188. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.08.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ploger, J. 2018. “Contact the Ephemeral City – The Difference between Rode Plads and Gillett Square.” Experimental Cities, 1–8. Accessed October 1, 2020. http://experimentalcities.com/the-ephemeral-city/.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Rishbeth, C. 2004. “Ethno-Cultural Representation in the Urban Landscape.” Journal of Urban Design 9 (3): 311–333. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1357480042000283878.
   Google Scholar
• Rishbeth, C., F. Ganji, and G. Vodicka. 2018. “Ethnographic Understandings of Ethnically Diverse Neighbourhoods to Inform Urban Design Practice.” Local Environment 23 (1): 36–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1385000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ristic, M. 2019. “The Marginalized Others: Memorials to Non-Jewish Holocaust Victims in Berlin’s Government District.” In Public Space Design and Social Cohesion, edited by P. Aelbrecht, and Q. Stevens, 58–77. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, G. 2017. “Going Beyond Methodological Presentism: Examples from a Copenhagen Neighbourhood 1885–2010.” Immigrants & Minorities 35 (1): 40–58. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2016.1246968.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sendra, P. 2015. “Rethinking Urban Public Space: Assemblage Thinking and the Uses of Disorder.” City 19 (6): 820–836. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2015.1090184.
   Google Scholar
• Sennett, R. 1974. The Fall of the Public Man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sennett, R., and P. Sendra. 2020. Designing Disorder: Experiments and Disruptions in the City. London: Verso Books.
   Google Scholar
• Sezer, C. 2019. Visibility of Turkish Amenities: Immigrants’ Integration and Social Cohesion in Amsterdam. In Public Space Design and Social Cohesion, edited by P. Aelbrecht, and Q. Stevens, 220–241. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sheller, M., and J. Urry. 2003. “Mobile Transformations of `Public' and `Private' Life.” Theory, Culture & Society 20 (3): 107–125. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764030203007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soufoulis, Z., H. Armstrong, M. Bounds, A. Lopes, and T. Andrews. 2008. Out and About in Penrith. University of Western Sydney. Centre for Cultural Research.
   Google Scholar
• Southworth, M., G. Cranz, G. Lindsay, and L. Morhayhim. 2012. “People in the Design of Urban Places.” Journal of Urban Design 17: 461–465. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2012.720757.
   Google Scholar
• Spierings, B., R. van Melik, and I. van Aalst. 2016. “ Parallel Lives on the Plaza: Young Dutch Women of Turkish and Moroccan Descent and Their Feelings of Comfort and Control on Rotterdam’s Schouwburgplein.” Space and Culture 19 (2): 150–163. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331215620994.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanfield, E., and M. van Riemsdijk. 2019. “Creating Public Space, Creating ‘the Public’: Immigration Politics and Representation in two Copenhagen Parks.” Urban Geography 40 (9): 1356–1374. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1591807.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics Denmark. 2020. FOLK1B: Population at the First Day of the Quarter by Region, Sex, Age (5 Years Age Groups) and Citizenship. Accessed October 1, 2020. https://www.statbank.dk/10021.
   Google Scholar
• StatLine. 2020. Rotterdam: Population Dynamics; Birth, Death and Migration per Region. Accessed October 1, 2020. https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/en/dataset/37259eng/table?ts=1606250066860.
   Google Scholar
• Steinfeld, E., and J. Maisel. 2012. Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments. London: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Story, M., J. Mueller, and R. Mace. 1998. The Universal Design File: Designing for People of all Ages and Abilities.
   Google Scholar
• Tschumi, B. 1996. Architecture and Disjunction. Boston: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• UK Census. 2011. Ethnic Group: Quick Stats (QS201EW). Accessed August 1, 2019. http://ukcensusdata.com/dalston-e05000235#sthash.qiFmNdfg.dpbs.
   Google Scholar
• Uzzell, D., E. Pol, and D. Badenas. 2002. “Place Identification, Social Cohesion, and Environmental Sustainability.” Environment and Behavior 34 (1): 26–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vertovec, S. 2007. “Super-Diversity and Its Implications.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30 (6): 1024–1054. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vertovec, S., and S. Wessendorf, eds. 2010. Multiculturalism Backlash: European Discourses, Policies and Practices. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• VisitCopenhagen. no date. Superkilen Park. VisitCopenhagen. Accessed August 1, 2019. https://www.visitcopenhagen.com/copenhagen/planning/superkilen-park-gdk707822.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, S. 2006. City Publics: The (dis) Enchantments of Urban Encounters. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, P. 2015. “Meet me on the Corner? Shaping the Conditions for Cross-Cultural Interaction in Urban Public Space.” In Interculturalism in Cities: Concept, Policy and Implementation, edited by R. Zapata-Barrero, 53–75. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, P., and C. Landry. 2008. The Intercultural City: Planning for Diversity Advantage. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Worpole, K., and K. Knox. 2008. The Social Value of Public Spaces. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. 2002. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar