图片Berczy Park在多伦多– before the cute dog statues were added to the fountain. On a hot summer day at this modest little slice of green in an otherwise busy downtown area, a woman decides to sit on the fountain’s edge. She dips her feet in the water. Before long, others have joined. And in that moment, she considers the safety of her impulse, the confidence of her action – and this opens a door to thinking about the many versions of this space and of her act. Her inner line of inquiry leads to questions about power, rules and people. Would every person in the city feel just as allowed to dangle their feet in the water, and to be the first to do so? And what is it that determines how we engage with the public realm and our shared commons?
The possible responses to these questions are typically, and unsurprisingly, centred around urban design: the physical features of public spaces – that is, what’s in them and how they look and could be used. And yet, a big challenge in creating optimal public spaces and technologies – ones that are people-centred, accessible, responsive and adaptive – is not only about the “what” but also the “who” and the “how.” Who is involved in the process of their creation and how are they invited to collaborate and co-design? This goes beyond thinking about the space itself, but a co-design process for the rules that govern the space.
Because to create truly democratized public space, we need to first embrace governance as a part of every design conversation from the very beginning. But well beyond this, we need to establish a共享管理我们的空间，一个采取的形式是在代表机构和社区成员之间就规则制定和规则修改进行对话。照顾我们的共享空间是一个永无止境的过程-这是唯一的方法，以确保我们的在线和离线领域服务于与生活，工作和娱乐广泛的需求。要做到这一点，我们需要问人们如何才能长期共同管理这些关键资产。在实践中，更多的这种方法将把城市的真正权力——人民——与市政府的体制形式结合起来。诀窍在于设计模型并投资使之实现。要想在社区和国家的议程之间找到更多的交叉点，最困难的部分是持续投入时间、精力和过程专业知识。betway必威中心
For public space to function, rules can be helpful. Rules, and the models that hold us accountable for them, are one way to create different safeties for all and freedoms from harm – physical, mental and otherwise. But safety is subjective. For so many of us, it is self-defined and self-designed, centring our unique identities and experiences of the world. When it comes to day-to-day operations, many of local government’s primary concerns in relation to rules and safety pertain to liability – criminal and otherwise – in terms of a government’s legal responsibility to the public. This is an important and complex issue with a long and tangled history relating to private property. But the analysis is simple – the way cities think about liability cannot be the only frame we use when we talk about human safety.
So many rules are unwritten and open to interpretation, causing some of us to wonder if there is a behavioural code we aren’t privy to. TheBerczy公共喷泉是一块基础架构的看似无害的例子，暗示了暗示它是关于它的且不意味着要使用的。有时，如奥斯陆的歌剧院的歌剧院，那就是不成文的代码显然是邀请函：这里是一个鼓励人们爬上它并直到它的屋顶 - 这是一个典型无法进入公共行道的建筑物。但是这样的纪念碑，无论如何在他们拥抱所有用户的内容中，只是公共领域的标志，其中嵌入到其监督中的隐形代码是不平等的遗迹。
For so many people, the rules are defined by their upbringing and the community to which they belong – and are enforced by institutional inequity. Consider how unsafe and excluded many residents currently are due to a range of racist urban planning and policing policies, and status quos that don’t take disabled communities into full consideration. Governments fail to create safety for everyone because they were and are shaped by colonialism. Inclusiveness doesn’t figure into a notion of “public safety” that derives from this violent history and worldview, one which still influences how the country and its cities operate today, and which includes overspending on policing versus investing in community. As ever, where our governments fail it is the people who pick up the slack to keep each other safe. So how can we better create safe shared spaces that advance inclusion and encourage creativity, joy and freedom?
First, we can set “positive” rules. These are rules that lay out what we want to do and what we want to encourage both online and offline. Positive rules grow the foundation for self-governance in a way that requires us to constantly define and redefine how our public spaces work for us, support us and nurture us. A primary design principle in creating public spaces is the management of certain types of liability related to property, but this prioritizing of liability concerns results in spaces that are exclusionary. It needs to stop。It’s not equity-based, and it won’t get us to creating spaces that support the kind of connection and urban commons we want to see.
When we manage liability related to property as our primary consideration, a list of rules and a mindset about “what you can’t do” emerge as a dominant force. When we leverage a more collaborative governance process, where taking care of this public infrastructure is shared, safety is explicitly co-defined and redefined on an ongoing basis, and different understandings and approaches to safety emerge. From there, people can hold the government accountable to deliver on these approaches. Imagine a city bench with a sign that says, “enjoy a quiet moment here” or “have a great conversation with a friend.” Something so simple can inspire us to generate joyful ways of using the space, versus only focusing on what we can do within its constraints. We can create commons where people find spaces to play, to be light, to experience joy, and know how to support each other in those activities.
Setting positive rules and communicating them “gives people the confidence to engage with the space, especially when they are framed in a positive tone that encourages use…and is particularly important when it comes to new spaces or new amenities” (North of the Water, 2018). These are the kinds of opportunities that can arise when there is shared governance that is focused on having the space be used actively and collectively, leading with the creation of trust through relationships and accountability over liability. It gives communities a chance to explicitly define which kinds of behaviour are encouraged versus which kinds violate our social contract, and how these agreements amongst ourselves will be held up. Investing in our capacity for self-governance allows us to show up for one another – it’s a method to pull long-standing and under-discussed issues of exclusion out into more public forums, and a way to do it more consistently. It’s urgent work. But who pays for it, how does it get done, and how does it plug into our formal local government?
Economist Elinor Ostrom life’s work is about investigating how communities succeed or fail at managing common resources such as land, forests and waters. One of the core principles of her thinking, which can be applied to managing shared resources such as public spaces, is that those impacted by their use should have a say in designing and overseeing them. Sheila Foster, a professor of urban law and policy at Georgetown University, has been doing extensive research and writing on the practical application of Ostrom’s work in cities for years.结果令人兴奋和鼓舞，从社区住房和土地信托到社区互联网网络的共享治理。奥斯特罗姆和福斯特是两位思想家，他们为我们提供了一个起点，让我们不断发展我们用来让我们的公共空间更好地为我们中的更多人服务的方法，并思考如何更好地定义国家和社区治理之间的界面。从这一思路出发，这里有两个与自治有关的关键机制需要更详细地考虑：
To support being in right relations with each other we need to embed collaborative design approaches early andofteninto any public space development process.Design approaches centred on equityoffer a window through which we can start to think about a deeper approach to collaborative design that moves beyond superficial co-creation and goes further to understand key elements related to power: why a project is being developed and the context of its development, if there is history and healing to be acknowledged about how the intended community has been served (or underserved), and identifying nodes of power that will enable an ongoing, iterative process of design that sustains key relationships and honours community voice throughout the lifespan of a development.
值得庆幸的是，随着最近的努力，更多地努力思考如何将人们置于这种设计谈话的核心。betway必威中心Eglinton - 文化映射研究的黑期货andCommunity Power for Anti-Displacement report about Chinatown’s Downtownexemplify. Across Canada, there are numerous equity-centred participatory design efforts; the most successful ones clearly identified who will share power and accountability for the infrastructure over the long-term – and did so early in the process. In this structure, the community plays the role of being eyes and ears on-the-ground, evaluating the success of the space, and sharing back with institutional and government stakeholders the issues and opportunities as they emerge so that changes can be made. Constantly. Parks groups often model ongoing and shared stewardship; among them is theThorncliffe Park Women’s Committee, where community members actively engage with the municipal government, philanthropic organizations and charities to ensure a continuous dialogue about critical public space needs.
Another space – this one online – that is experimenting with commons-based thinking is多伦多Mesh。在那里，一群居民正在研究一个社区驱动的互联网接入和治理模型，称为社区网络。这种令人兴奋的倡议超越了让人们的互联网访问：它旨在建立数字识字和社区能力，居民可以为如何为我们希望本地技术系统创造如何工作的规则，同时考虑更广泛的社区和经济带有它的力量。这包括构建知识，以支持新技术企业以及这些企业的行业模式，包括合作社，以便在组织设计中分享工作人员的合作途径。betway必威中心世界各地的网格社区 - 德国西班牙和弗利内克的Guifi是着名的先例 - 在实践中提供广泛和积极规则的故事;他们表明，从现状发展社区权力的务实潜力 - 将公共和私人资产与社区设计和监督的新结构和格式混合在一起。betway必威中心一如既往，科技就是容易的部分。找到一个人来建立和维护网络的时间和能力是棘手的部分，它是应该探索与城市政府的新接口的地方。
这两个关键机制 - 从协作设计过程开始，并在一个总体方向上使用了广泛的治理 - 点：公共服务和公共政策必须发展以betway必威中心适应能够实现的多元化和使其发生的方式。撇开选举政治，公共服务 - 政府的大和专家机械 - 为忽视太多而且才能挽救。必须演变它的形状，形式和结构，以通过公共方法匹配更多人的需求。这涉及设计界面和翻译空间，并betway必威中心以新颖的方式进行网络投资和人员。然而这一点都不是新的;它全部是关于合并和重组现有系统和知识，社区和城市政府。我们必须停止思考社区流程和城市流程作为独立的方法，而是开始积极地将它们映射在一起。
也许管理的最重要的预期之一是混乱的。没有一套自治规则，使其简单，整洁或完全达成共识。成功的结果往往看起来像一群人决定他们共同规则的结果是他们可以居住的东西 - 这是远离野生庆祝活动或彻底绝望的灯光。治理和管理不仅仅是创造完美的完美无暇的政策，这些政策是为每个人提供服务。这是关于Praxis - 创造一个民主框架，允许新的积极和消极规则从社区中出现并以其需求发展。它还考虑了这些规则如何插入由市政府管理的措施更正式的治理方法。通过这种方式，我们应该考虑公共领域，脱阵线和在线，而不是设计和定义的“地方”，而是作为一个过程。betway必威中心这一点是为能够使这种情况和行为的方式创造空间，这可能会发生这种情况，并再次又一次地又一次地发生这种情况。