← Back to Esr
About Research topic Blog Case studies Vocabulary Publications Relations

Effrosyni Roussou

ESR9

Host university

B6 - Department of Architecture, University of Cyprus

Supervising team

Nadia Charalambous (Supervisor) Carla Sentieri (Co-Supervisor) Andreas Savvides (Co-Supervisor)

Secondments

School of Architecture, Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain Sheffield School of Architecture (SSoA), University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

Research project

ESR9 - The challenge of change in living environments: implications and opportunities for architectural education

Effrosyni Roussou is an architect hailing from Nafplion, Greece. She holds a BSc and MSc degree from Democritus University of Thrace in Architectural Engineering (2015), and an MSc degree from Chalmers University of Technology in “Architecture and planning beyond sustainability” (2018). She is currently undertaking the challenge to illustrate the benefits of a commons-oriented and community engaged design & build pedagogy, and develop an educational framework and provide the tools for employing hands-on participatory design methodologies in architectural education through transdisciplinary design-and-build activities.

She has worked as a research assistant in several projects as well as a course assistant, coordinator, and project manager for the design-and-build summer course “Dare to Build” at Chalmers University of Technology. Additionally, she is one of the co-founders of the webradio station "Anarres.fm" and a graphic designer and illustrator for the self-organised publishing group "Athanor", based in Athens, Greece.

Her main interests revolve around the interplay between politics, social perspectives, architecture and sustainability and its impact on the shifting role of the architect. A central concept, encompassing all the activities she is engaged in, is the commons: her master thesis at Chalmers (“Co-existing in a crisis-ridden city: Exploring architectural ways to induce commoning practices within an economic crisis context”) aimed at questioning the role of the architect within an anti-hegemonic way of space production and safeguarding the commons.

Research topic

Updated sumaries

August, 29, 2023

April, 11, 2022

September, 17, 2021

From creator to enabler: the underpinnings and implications of the co.design.build housing studio [working title]

 

In the face of intricate global socio-political and environmental challenges exacerbated by ongoing systemic failures, accessing affordable and sustainable housing and neighbourhoods has become increasingly elusive for a growing number of people, particularly in contexts where welfare policies are limited. The role of architects in spatially shaping these realities has faced criticism for its detachment from real-world concerns, ethical considerations, and its role in reinforcing dominant systems, a detachment that illustrates architecture's historical ties to modernity and capitalism. 

 

Architectural pedagogy and education have contributed significantly to the way architects practice architecture. A significant number of scholars have criticised the underpinnings of the cornerstone of architectural education, the housing design studio, by addressing both the premise, structure, and syllabus, and the hidden curriculum. The traditional housing design studio is designed to operate in isolation from the realities of people, (e.g. increased population mobility, climate crisis, extreme financialisation of housing and commodification of urban life etc.) fostering self-indulgence, self-reference, competitiveness, and a false sense of primacy in spatial matters.  

 

Efforts have emerged to challenge this studio framework. Experimental teaching practices aim to open up architectural education to politically engaged and transdisciplinary learning practices. Participatory design and co-creation methods entered the educational discourse as a way to reconsider both the knowledge, the way it is produced and who gets to be involved in its production. Design & build projects, grounded in reconnecting the architect with the material, increasing their accountability towards users and communities, and aiding them to understand architecture as a node in a web of real-world dependencies. Both of these have sought to decentralise the self-perceived role of the architect within social (re)production and destabilise the stiff boundaries of the discipline.  

 

However, despite the significant proliferation and popularisation of such approaches in recent years, albeit as acupuncture, the persisting stalemate between them and the hegemonic discourses permeating architectural education leaves prospective spatial practitioners with insufficient skills to navigate current realities. This project argues that alternative approaches to architectural education need to be re-contextualised within the broader anti-hegemonic discourse of the commons, and profoundly challenge (1) the nature of the produced knowledge, the way and by whom it is produced,exchanged, and transferred, (2) the hegemonic relations, the culture, norms, and values (re)produced -within and beyond the classroom- that shape the identity and the role of the architect within socio-spatial production and finally (3) the discipline itself, its boundaries, and the formal and informal rules that determine what is acknowledged as (sustainable) architecture.  

 

The project will be carried out mainly qualitatively, by combining Participatory Action Research and Autoethnographic methods, having as a basis of operations the University of Cyprus, and focusing on the broader region of the European South, as crisis-ridden contexts. The educational framework (co.design.build housing studio) that will be developed through this exploration, will be tested in several iterations, to gain insights on its impact primarily on students, and secondly on local participating communities. 

 

Finally, this project aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the need to reimagine architectural education at the bachelor level, within and beyond its staple component, the housing design studio, for future spatial practitioners to be able to navigate the increasingly uncertain and volatile current realities. Additionally, through its practical, hands-on socio-spatial outreach and collaboration with local actors, this project aspires to rethink academic institutions as commoning spaces and important actors within spatial production. The final aim of this project is to discuss the need for a critical approach to transdisciplinary collaborations as learning processes, through the notion of commons/commoning. Therefore, the research questions that this project seeks to answer are the following:  

 

  1. What are the underpinnings and pedagogical impact of an effective, engaging, and impactful studio that combines critical co-creation methodologies with a design and build learning environment (co.design.build)? 

  1. How can a co.design.build housing studio become an important actor both in deconstructing norms perpetuated within architectural education through the traditional housing design studio and in advocating-in-action for equitable, affordable and sustainable neighbourhoods, especially in the context of the European South? 

  1. How can the learning process be transformed into a commoning process among students, teachers, and stakeholders through the co.design.build housing studio?

 

Reference documents

Icon document

the co.design.build framework, tested in spring/summer 2023

View

From creator to enabler: the underpinnings and implications of the co.design.build studio

 

Despite the significant proliferation in the understandings of an architect’s role within a multitude of (spatial) agencies, architectural education remains relatively isolated and impermeable to a radically political interpretation of architecture within the real world. While affordable and sustainable housing & neighbourhoods (ASHN) become an increasingly pressing need towards a sustainable future, the neoliberalisation of strategic visions for the future, such as sustainability, provides a fertile ground for the fragmentation of contemporary challenges in ASHN, leaving room for vague, disconnected and ultimately ineffective responses. In this neoliberal context, rethinking architectural education and bridging the gap between design practice and studio pedagogy becomes imperative.

 

Praxis, as opposed to a traditionally simulative approach, in the form of design-and-build and/or co-creation studios, have been exploring alternative approaches in an attempt to break the isolation of architectural education from contemporary challenges and (re)introduce architecture schools as crucial actors in local communities, especially in northern European and north American contexts. Exposure to real contexts, through co-creation (people needs) or design and build studios (construction/material needs), has aided students in gaining a better understanding of the implications of design for ASHN. There is, however, limited research on the theoretical and methodological underpinnings, as well as the impact of a co-creation and co-design and build studio, especially in the European South.

 

Drawing from critical theories mainly on urban commons, (commoning), participation (cross-benching) and social ecology, the main questions explored through this project are as follows:

 

  1. What are the underpinnings and pedagogical impact of an effective, engaging and impactful transdisciplinary studio that combines critical co-creation methodologies with a design and build learning environment (co.design.build)?
  2. How can a co.design.build studio become an important actor within a more radical understanding of affordable and sustainable housing systems/networks especially in the context of the European South?

 

This project will adopt an action research methodology consisting of four main components: (1) planning, i.e. positioning the project idea within the literature, identifying and analysing relevant study cases, understanding the context and developing the components, strategies, methods and structure of the (2) action, where the idea/pilot syllabus will be tested. During this part (3) systematic data collection will take place, through e.g. observation, interviews, questionnaires in different facets of the process, which will be followed by (4) reflection, analysis, evaluation of the collected data, and the subsequent synthesis into a revised syllabus to be re-tested.

 

The expected outcome of this research is a theoretical and methodological framework for an effective, engaging and impactful co.design.build studio that promotes a radical understanding of sustainability through transdisciplinary, direct action from co-conception to co-construction, and also insights both on the opportunities and implications of its implementation in a southern European context, but also on its applicability in others. Finally, this project aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the role of architecture schools -and academic institutions in general- within the affordable and sustainable neighbourhoods vision; as active co-stakeholders, able to achieve a direct and positive impact with and for the communities they are situated in, universities could provide high quality and meaningful education while contributing to a paradigm shift towards a sustainable future.

Reference documents

Icon document

The Research Process

View

From creator to enabler: the underpinnings and implications of the co.design.build studio

 

Contemporary architectural education, especially in southern European contexts, remains widely ineffective in addressing the increasingly complex and ever-shifting realities that urban dwellers are called to face. While economic fluctuations, climate change and the various political agendas are spawning challenges that are profoundly transforming living environments and reshaping contemporary housing provision, architectural education remains widely unchanged. Persisting normative approaches result in the architect as a detached figure, operating top-down, in a purely theoretical plane and completely cut off from the socio-cultural aspects and implications as well as the end users of their work.

 

Even though design-build courses, as part of architectural curricula around the world, have shown promising results in challenging the archetype of the architect as an omnipotent creator the current focus is -to a large extent- on the development of students’ technical and managerial skills. This project aims to explore the opportunities for radical change within architecture schools, especially in the European south, through the implementation of transdisciplinary, collaborative/multistakeholder co.design.build courses within a social and environmental sustainability framework and a focus on acupuncture interventions on the neighbourhood scale.

 

The research approach that will be followed is community-based participatory action research (CBPAR), which will unfold in two stages: (1) co-creation of the course structure, aims, objectives and approach through workshops with faculty and prospective students and (2) course implementation and testing in two separate iterations (spring & autumn 2023). The second part will involve close monitoring of participants’ (students, teachers, local stakeholders) views and perceptions on the course and their own involvement, before, during and after the completion of each iteration.

 

The expected outcome of this research is a set of strategies in creating and running a transdisciplinary, multistakeholder co.design.build course that “thinks globally but operates locally” as well as a thorough and reflexive evaluation of the experimentation process.

Blog

Recent activity

Icon something-is-blooming-in-nicosia-community-engaged-design-build-activities-at-ucy-school-of-architecture

Something is blooming in Nicosia: community-engaged design & build activities at UCY School of Architecture

Posted on 21-07-2023

Learning is never confined solely to an institutionalised classroom. - bell hooks, Teaching Community: a pedagogy of hope, 2003     At the end of June, the 1st official iteration of the co.design.build module at the University of Cyprus in Nicosia wrapped up successfully. A semester-long process, based on the co-creation and design & build methodologies resulted in the designing and building of a shaded sitting/meeting platform. The platform, named “Take a seed”, designed for the Latsia Highschool courtyard, aims to encourage user appropriation and foster a feeling of collectiveness, also considering educational aspects around native plants through the inclusion of a system for planting and seed distribution.   The co.design.build module involved three different courses: The Y2 housing co-creation studio, titled “co-creating urban commons: from the home to the neighbourhood”, in which students were tasked with critically think about the notions of “housing”, “sharing”, “co-living” and the “commons”, and designing housing that reflects their own positioning about these concepts. They were also asked to contemplate on the role of the local high school in Latsia’s suburb as a potential focal point in the future neighbourhood and spatially translate their vision in collaboration with the Y3 & Y4 students and with the high school students that participated in the semester-long co-creation workshops; The Y3, Y4 co-design course, titled “co-design, co-build, co-inhabit: co-creation from design to construction”, in which students collaborated with with high school students to co-design in detail small-scale spatial interventions answering to the actual needs of the school users, while promoting social interaction, encouraging appropriation; and The Y2, Y3, Y4 summer course, titled “co-design, co-build, co-inhabit: all hands on deck!”, in which students were tasked with constructing a selected project from the co-design course and delivering it to its users.   All of these different educational activities were created to both illustrate the dependencies of architecture, but also to challenge the ever persisting modernist, hetero-patriarchal norms, behavioural codes and stereotypes of the architect as an identity (what Jeremy Till refers to as “architecture culture” [1]), as well as their role in society. In the hopes of subverting false ideas of a detached practice, often unconsciously perpetuated within architecture schools, students were asked to navigate diverse situations, not necessarily confined to what would traditionally be considered “architectural”: from translating concepts into spatial elements, to conversing with stakeholders; or from managing social media campaigns, to solving material shortage problems. In essence, students were asked to find their bearings within a continuous fluctuation between real-world conditions and abstract imaginaries, beyond architecture and into spatial agency [2].   Specifically, during the final stage of the co.design.build module – the “building phase” –, students were asked to assume different mantles; builder, communicator, researcher, carer, mediator, enabler, among others. Within three weeks of continuous shifting between roles, of collective effort towards a goal with real impact on the high school community, students exhibited increasing levels of confidence in their own abilities, and their growing eagerness to take initiative and their ability to work together was translated into instances of self-organisation. Ultimately, this stage allowed each member of the group to bring in their own unique set of capabilities and personality and contribute in diverse, yet equally meaningful ways.   While all the activities of which the co.design.build module consists fall under a mode of learning called “experiential”, i.e. learning through experiencing [3], this final stage is perhaps a learning environment that ties experiencing with empathising. All this mantle-changing, the different roles and situations to which students are exposed, shifts “being” an architect, into “becoming” a spatial agent. While “being” signifies the uncritical appropriation of the norms and stereotypes that have been dominating architectural education, “becoming” implies motion, a constant re-working and re-discovery of the self, the knowledge and the tools we use, a joyful thrusting into new frontiers [4]. Architectural education, especially in challenging local contexts (post-colonial, developing, etc.), needs pedagogical vessels that fundamentally challenge architecture culture, which operate through tactical and direct action within the margins of the market economy, towards the creation of meaningful spaces for local communities.   There is still a lot of work to be done, but the aspiration for the co.design.build module for the future is to become a threshold, a gateway from architecture into spatial agency, and a medium through which the Architecture School of the University of Cyprus can become a crucial actor in matters concerning spatial interventions in Nicosia. After all, as Harris & Widder say, “the reality of building can only be experienced by building reality” [5].   If you would like to meet this year’s team, follow this spring semester’s project(s) and browse through past ones, follow us on social media: https://www.instagram.com/cocreationstudio.ucy/  https://www.tiktok.com/@takeaseed/                 [1] Till, J. (2009). Architecture Depends. The MIT Press. [2] Awan, N., Schneider, T., & Till, J. (2011). Spatial Agency: Other Ways Of Doing Architecture. Routledge. [3] John Dewey was a scholar of education who first developed the theory around experiential learning in 1938. [4] Sewell, J. I. (2014). “becoming rather than being”: Queer’s double-edged discourse as deconstructive practice. In Journal of Communication Inquiry (Vol. 38, Issue 4, pp. 291–307). SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002714553900 [5] Harriss, H., & Widder, L. (2014). Architecture live projects pedagogy into practice.

Reflections

Read more ->
Icon kick-off-of-a-new-adventure

Kick-off of a new adventure!

Posted on 18-07-2021

So, this is it. I am here, in 40°C Nicosia, and I’m -digitally- surrounded by awesome people who are going to be my peers and colleagues for the next three years. I must say, I feel a mixture of awe and agitation at what lies ahead of me in this journey. This is why I paired this text with an image of Bilbo Baggins, about to leave Hobbiton behind; because I see a bit of myself in him: clearly out of my comfort zone but nonetheless excited to join this journey! On the 3rd of July we began our 4-day kick-off sessions as a digital meet-and-greet and tuning-in workshop. It felt quite awkward in the beginning, as it is expected when 40+ people meet online for the very first time, but very productive too. I was happy to listen to different perspectives on the meanings of key terms in this endeavour, such as sustainability and transdisciplinarity and try to understand or imagine where everyone’s definitions and opinions come from, what has influenced their way of thinking and steered them in a certain direction. But I was more than happy to already feel a sense of community with my team members, the 14 ESRs with whom I will be working. Through our shared confusion on what happens next, the everyday struggles to settle in new places, surround ourselves with new people and build a new “home” and the hints of insecurity peeking through those moments of sharing all the aforementioned, made me realise that I am indeed not alone in this, neither professionally, nor mentally. And there’s nothing better than finding such ties, or “making kin”, in a world that pushes us to compete, so that the strongest can survive and succeed. After all, as Jack Halberstam* once pointed out, the notion of a universal definition of success is rooted in the western economic system under which we live. But to not wander further away, I’ll just say that it was a highly enjoyable 4-day session, albeit overwhelming at times and I’m looking forward to delving deeper into everyone’s insights on this complicated task we are called to tackle. I really look forward to sharing knowledge and learning from everyone and that’s what I’m primarily here to do. I am here to learn, and the truth is I will never stop being “here to learn”. I will leave you with a quote from a beloved book that has accompanied me since I was a teenager:                 "[…] I will face my fear.                  I will permit it to pass over me and through me.                 And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path.                 Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."  - Frank Herbert, in Dune   *If you’d like to delve deeper into how our perception of success is shaped by heteronormative capitalism, check out Halberstam’s book “The queer art of failure”.

Workshops

Read more ->

Case studies

Contributions to the case study library

Icon dare-to-build-chalmers-university-of-technology

DARE to Build, Chalmers University of Technology

Created on 04-07-2023

'DARE to build' is a 5–week (1 week of design – 4 weeks of construction) elective summer course offered at the Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden. The course caters for master-level students from 5 different master programmes offered at the Architecture and Civil Engineering Department. Through a practice-based approach and a subsequent exposure to real-world problems, “DARE to build” aims to prove that “real change can be simultaneously made and learned (Brandão et al., 2021b, 2021a). The goal of this course is to address the increasing need for effective multidisciplinary teams in the fields of architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) in order to tackle the ever-growing complexity of real-world problems (Mcglohn et al., 2014), and the pervading lack of a strong pedagogical framework that responds effectively to this challenge. The two main foci of the “DARE to build” pedagogical model are:  (1) to train students in interdisciplinary communication, to cultivate empathy and appreciation for the contributions of each discipline, to sharpen collaborative skills (Tran et al., 2012) and (2) to expose students in practice-based, real-world design projects, through a problem-and-project-based learning (PPBL) approach, within a multi-stakeholder learning environment (Wiek et al., 2014). This multi-stakeholder environment is situated in the municipality of Gothenburg and involves different branches and services (Stadsbyggnadskontoret, Park och Naturförvaltningen), local/regional housing companies (Familjebostäder, Bostadsbolaget), professionals/collectives operating within the AEC fields (ON/OFF Berlin, COWI), and local residents and their associations (Hyresgästföreningen, Tidsnätverket i Bergsjön).   Design & Build through CDIO By showcasing that “building, making and designing are intrinsic to each other” (Stonorov et al., 2018, p. 1), students put the theory acquired into practice and reflect on the implications of their design decisions. Subsequently they  reflect on their role as AEC professionals, in relation to local and global sustainability; from assessing feasibility within a set timeframe to the intangible qualities generated or channelled through design decisions in specific contexts. This hands-on learning environment applies the CDIO framework (conceive, design, implement, operate, http://www.cdio.org/), an educational framework developed in the MIT, with a particular focus on the “implementation” part.  CDIO has been developed in recent years as a reforming tool for engineering education, and is centred on three main goals: (1) to acquire a thorough knowledge of technical fundamentals, (2) to sharpen leadership and initiative-taking skills, and (3) to become aware of the important role research and technological advances can play in design decisions (Crawley et al., 2014). Therefore, design and construction, combined with  CDIO, offer a comprehensive experience that enables future professionals to assume a knowledgeable and confident role within the AEC sector.   Course structure “DARE to build” projects take place during the autumn semester along with the “Design and Planning for Social Inclusion” (DPSI) studio. Students work closely with the local stakeholders throughout the semester and on completion of the studio, one project is selected to become the “DARE to build” project of the year, based on (1) stakeholder interest and funding capacity, (2) pedagogical opportunities and the (3) feasibility of construction. During the intervening months, the project is further developed, primarily by faculty, with occasional inputs from the original team of DPSI students and support from professionals with expertise relevant to a particular project. The purpose of this further development of the initial project is to establish the guidelines for the 1-week design process carried out within “DARE to build”. During the building phase, the group of students is usually joined by a team of 10-15 local (whenever possible) summer workers, aged between 16-21 years old, employed by the stakeholders (either by the Municipality of Gothenburg or by a local housing company). The aim of this collaboration is twofold - to have a substantial amount of workforce on site and to create a working environment where students are simultaneously learning and teaching, therefore enhancing their sense of responsibility. “DARE to build” has also collaborated - in pre-pandemic times - with Rice University in Texas, so 10 to 15 of their engineering students joined the course as a summer educational experience abroad. The timeline for each edition of the “DARE to build” project evolution can be schematically represented through the CDIO methodology, which becomes the backbone of the programme (adapted from the courses’ syllabi): Conceive: Developed through a participatory process within the design studio “Design and Planning for Social Inclusion”, in the Autumn. Design: (1) Teaching staff  defines design guidelines and materials, (2) student participants detail and redesign some elements of the original project, as well as create schedules, building site logistical plans, budget logs, etc. Implement: The actual construction of the building is planned and executed. All the necessary building documentation is produced in order to sustain an informed and efficient building process. Operate: The completed built project is handed over to the stakeholders and local community. All the necessary final documentation for the operability of the project is produced and completed (such as-built drawings, etc.). In both the design and construction process, students take on different responsibilities on a daily basis, in the form of different roles:  project manager, site supervisor, communications officer, and food & fika (=coffee break) gurus. Through detailed documentation, each team reports on everything related to the project’s progress, the needs and potential material deficits on to the next day’s team. Cooking, as well as eating and drinking together, works as an important and an effective team-bonding activity.    Learning Outcomes The learning outcomes are divided into three different sets to fit with the overall vision of “DARE to Build” (adapted from the course syllabi): Knowledge and understanding: To identify and explain a project’s life cycle, relate applied architectural design to sustainability and to describe different approaches to sustainable design. Abilities and skills: To be able to implement co-creation methods, design and assess concrete solutions, to visualise and communicate proposals, to apply previously gained knowledge to real-world projects, critically review architectural/technical solutions, and to work in multidisciplinary teams. Assessment and attitude: To be able to elaborate different proposals on a scientific and value-based argumentation, to combine knowledge from different disciplines, to consider and review conditions for effective teamwork, to further develop critical thinking   on professional roles.   The context of operations: Miljonprogrammet The context in which “DARE to Build” operates is the so-called “Million Homes Programme” areas (MHP, in Swedish: Miljonprogrammet) of suburban Gothenburg. The MHP was an ambitious state-subsidised response to the rapidly growing need for cheap, high-quality housing in the post-war period. The aim was to provide one million dwellings within a decade (1965-1974), an endeavour anchored on the firm belief that intensified housing production would be relevant and necessary in the future (Baeten et al., 2017; Hall & Vidén, 2005). During the peak years of the Swedish welfare state, as this period is often described, public housing companies, with help from private contractors, built dwellings that targeted any potential home-seeker, regardless of income or class. In order to avoid suburban living and segregation, rental subsidies were granted on the basis of income and number of children, so that, in theory, everyone could have access to modern housing and full of state-of-the-art amenities (Places for People - Gothenburg, 1971). The long-term perspective of MHP also meant profound alterations in the urban landscape; inner city homes in poor condition were demolished and entire new satellite districts were constructed from scratch triggering “the largest wave of housing displacement in Sweden’s history, albeit firmly grounded in a social-democratic conviction of social betterment for all” (Baeten et al., 2017, p. 637) . However, when this economic growth came to an abrupt halt due to the oil crisis of the 1970s, what used to be an attractive and modern residential area became second-class housing, shunned by the majority of Swedish citizens looking for a house. Instead, they became an affordable option for the growing number of immigrants arriving in Sweden between 1980 and 2000, resulting in a high level of segregation in Swedish cities. (Baeten et al., 2017). Nowadays, the MHP areas are home to multi-cultural, mostly low income, immigrant and refugee communities. Media narratives of recent decades have systematically racialised, stigmatised and demonised the suburbs and portrayed them as cradles of criminal activity and delinquency, laying the groundwork for an increasingly militarised discourse (Thapar-Björkert et al., 2019). The withdrawal of the welfare state from these areas is manifested through the poor maintenance of the housing stock and the surrounding public places and the diminishing public facilities (healthcare centres, marketplaces, libraries, etc.) to name a few. Public discourse, best reflected in the media, often individualizes the problems of "culturally different" inhabitants, which subsequently "justifies" people's unwillingness to work due to the "highly insecure" environment. In recent years, the gradual (neo)liberalisation of the Swedish housing regime has provided room for yet another wave of displacement, leaving MHP area residents with little to no housing alternatives. The public housing companies that own MHP stock have started to offer their stock to potential private investors through large scale renovations that, paired with legal reforms, allow private companies to reject rent control. As a result, MHP areas are entering a phase of brutal gentrification (Baeten et al., 2017).   Reflections Within such a sensitive and highly complex context, both “DARE to Build”, and “Design & Planning for Social Inclusion” aspire to make Chalmers University of Technology an influential local actor and spatial agent within the shifting landscape of the MHP areas, thus highlighting the overall relevance of academic institutions as strong, multi-faceted and direct connections with the “real-world”. Even though participation and co-creation methodologies are strong in all “Design and Planning for Social Inclusion” projects, “DARE to Build” has still some ground to cover. In the critical months that follow the selection of the project and up to the first week of design phase, a project may change direction completely in order to fit the pedagogical and feasibility criteria. This fragmented participation and involvement, especially of those with less power within the stakeholder hierarchy, risks leading to interventions in which local residents have no sense of ownership or pride, especially in a context where interventions from outsiders, or from the top down, are greeted with increased suspicion and distrust. Overall “DARE to build” is a relevant case of context-based education which can inform future similar activities aimed at integration education in the community as an instrument to promote sustainable development.   Relevant “DARE to build” projects Gärdsåsmosse uteklassrum: An outdoor classroom in Bergsjön conceptualised through a post-humanist perspective and constructed on the principles of biomimicry, and with the use of almost exclusively natural materials. Visit: https://www.chalmers.se/sv/institutioner/ace/nyheter/Sidor/Nu-kan-undervisningen-dra-at-skogen.aspx https://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/cowi/pressreleases/cowi-hjaelpte-goeteborgs-stad-foervandla-moerk-park-till-en-plats-att-ha-picknick-i-2920358   Parkourius: A parkour playground for children and teens of the Merkuriusgatan neighbourhood in Bergsjön. A wooden construction that employs child-friendly design. Visit: https://www.sto-stiftung.de/de/content-detail_112001.html https://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/familjebostader-goteborg-se/pressreleases/snart-invigs-bergsjoens-nya-parkourpark-3111682

E.Roussou (ESR9)

Read more ->

Vocabulary

Contributions to the vocabulary

Co-creation

Sustainability

Area: Community participation

In a broader sense, co-creation means the joint effort of bringing something new to fruition through acts of collective creativity (Sanders & Stappers, 2008) which can be manifested in both tangible (making something together) or intangible (learning something together) outcomes (Puerari et al., 2018). Recently, the concepts of co-creation or co- production have been applied to describe the processes of participation in urban planning and design. Both terms place particular emphasis on the partnerships formed between citizens and the public sector, in which a high level of citizen involvement is pivotal. Participation has been defined through its different levels of citizen involvement, ranging from non-participation to greater degrees of citizen control (Arnstein, 1969) indicating the different levels of influence a participant can have on a participatory process. From the perspective of urban planning, citizen participation is beginning to be described as co-creation when citizens’ roles become more prominent, presenting aspects of self-organisation, increased commitment and a sense of ownership of the process (Puerari et al., 2018). Recent research is exploring new methods of urban planning in which citizens, the municipality and private organisations co-create new planning rules (Bisschops & Beunen, 2019). However, co-creation along with co-production and participation, often used interchangeably, have become popular catchphrases and are considered as processes which are of virtue in themselves. Furthermore, while there is substantial research on these processes, the research conducted on the outcomes of enhanced participation remains rather limited (Voorberg et al., 2015). This highlights the ambiguity in terms of interpretation; is co-creation a methodology, a set of tools to enhance and drive a process, or a goal in itself? (Puerari et al., 2018). There have often been cases where participation, co-creation and co-production have been used decoratively, as a form of justification and validation of decisions already made (Armeni, 2016). In the provision of public spaces, co-creation/co-production may specifically involve housing (Brandsen & Helderman, 2012; Chatterton, 2016) and placemaking: “placemaking in public space implies engaging in the practice of urban planning and design beyond an expert culture. Such collaboration can be described as co-creation.” (Eggertsen Teder, 2019, p.290). As in participation, co-creation requires the sharing of decision-making powers, the creation of  joint knowledge and the assignation of abilities between communities, while urban professionals and local authorities should draw attention to the active involvement of community members. Furthermore, co-creation does not take place in a vacuum, but always occurs within socio- spatial contexts. This points to the objective of co-creation as a tool to influence locally relevant policy through innovation that is “place-based”. To conclude, co-creation can be perceived as a process that is both transdisciplinary in its application, and as a tool for achieving transdisciplinarity on a broader scale through a systematic integration in existing standard practices in urban planning, housing design and architecture. Despite the persisting ambiguity in its definition, co-creation processes can provide more inclusive platforms for revisiting and informing formal and informal knowledge on sustainable and affordable housing.

Created on 16-02-2022

Author: E.Roussou (ESR9), A.Panagidis (ESR8)

Read more ->

Area: Community participation

Sustainability is primarily defined as 'the idea that goods and services should be produced in ways that do not use resources that cannot be replaced and that do not damage the environment' (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus, n.d.) and is often used interchangeably with the term “sustainable development”(Aras & Crowther, 2009). As defined by the UN, sustainable development is the effort to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations, 1987) and is often interpreted as the strategies adopted towards sustainability with the latter being the overall goal/vision (Diesendorf, 2000). Both of these relatively general and often ambiguous terms have been a focal point for the past 20 years for researchers, policy makers, corporations as well as local communities, and activist groups, among others, (Purvis et al., 2019). The ambiguity and vagueness that characterise both of these terms have contributed to their leap into the global mainstream as well as the broad political consensus regarding their value and significance (Mebratu, 1998; Purvis et al., 2019), rendering them one of the dominant discourses in environmental, socio-political and economic issues (Tulloch, 2013). It is, however, highly contested whether their institutionalisation is a positive development. Tulloch, and Tulloch & Nielson (2013; 2014) argue that these terms -as they are currently understood- are the outcome of the “[colonisation of] environmentalist thought and action” which, during the 1960s and 1970s, argued that economic growth and ecological sustainability within the capitalist system were contradictory pursuits. This “colonisation” resulted in the disempowerment of such discourses and their subsequent “[subordination] to neoliberal hegemony” (Tulloch & Neilson, 2014, p. 26). Thus, sustainability and sustainable development, when articulated within neoliberalism, not only reinforce such disempowerment, through practices such as greenwashing, but also fail to address the intrinsic issues of a system that operates on, safeguards, and prioritises economic profit over social and ecological well-being (Jakobsen, 2022). Murray Bookchin (1982), in “The Ecology of Freedom” contends that social and environmental issues are profoundly entangled, and their origin can be traced to the notions of hierarchy and domination. Bookchin perceives the exploitative relationship with nature as a direct outcome of the development of hierarchies within early human societies and their proliferation ever since. In order to re-radicalise sustainability, we need to undertake the utopian task of revisiting our intra-relating, breaking down these hierarchical relations, and re-stitching our social fabric. The intra-relating between and within the molecules of a society (i.e. the different communities it consists of) determines how sustainability is understood and practised (or performed), both within these communities and within the society they form. In other words, a reconfigured, non-hierarchical, non-dominating intra-relationship is the element that can allow for an equitable, long-term setting for human activity in symbiosis with nature (Dempsey et al., 2011, p. 290). By encouraging, striving for, and providing the necessary space for all voices to be heard, for friction and empathy to occur, the aforementioned long-term setting for human activity based on a non-hierarchical, non-dominating intra-relating is strengthened, which augments the need for various forms of community participation in decision-making, from consulting to controlling. From the standpoint of spatial design and architecture, community participation is already acknowledged as being of inherent value in empowering communities (Jenkins & Forsyth, 2009), while inclusion in all facets of creation, and community control in management and maintenance can improve well-being and social reproduction (Newton & Rocco, 2022; Turner, 1982). However, much like sustainability, community participation has been co-opted by the neoliberal hegemony; often used as a “front” for legitimising political agendas or as panacea to all design problems, community participation has been heavily losing its significance as a force of social change (Smith & Iversen, 2018), thus becoming a depoliticised, romanticised prop. Marcus Miessen (2011) has developed a critical standpoint towards what is being labelled as participation; instead of a systematic effort to find common ground and/or reach consensus, participation through a cross-benching approach could be a way to create enclaves of disruption, i.e. processes where hierarchy and power relations are questioned, design becomes post-consensual spatial agency and participation turns into a fertile ground for internal struggle and contestation. Through this cross-benching premise, community participation is transformed into a re-politicised spatial force. In this context, design serves as a tool of expressing new imaginaries that stand against the reproduction of the neoliberal spatial discourse. Thus, sustainability through community participation could be defined as the politicised effort to question, deconstruct and dismantle the concept of dominance by reconfiguring the process of intra-relating between humans and non-humans alike.

Created on 08-06-2022

Author: E.Roussou (ESR9)

Read more ->

Publications

Charalambous, N., Panayi, C., & Roussou, E., (2022, August-September).Community-engaged design: learning through live projects in residential environments [Conference presentation]. European Network for Housing Research (ENHR) Conference 2022. Barcelona, Spain.

Posted on 30-08-2022

Conference

Read more ->

Charalambous, N., Roussou, E., & Panayi, C. (2022, August-September). Co-creating urban commons through community-engaged pedagogies [Conference presentation]. EAAE Annual Conference, Madrid.

Posted on 31-08-2022

Conference

Read more ->

Panayi, C., Roussou, E., & Charalambous, N. (2023, August). Fostering transdisciplinarity and co-creation in architecture: from research to teaching and vice versa. EAAE Annual conference 2023 School of Architecture(s), Turin, Italy.

Posted on 29-08-2023

Conference

Read more ->

Relational graph

icon case study Case Study
icon case study Concept
icon case study Publication
icon case study Blogposts