The 3rd Knowledge Cities World Summit Proceedings

FROM KCWS 2010 Ch airs and Summit Proceeding Ed ito rs ‘Knowledge’ is a resource, which relies on the past for a better future. In the 21st century, more than ever before, cities around the world depend on the knowledge of their citizens, their institutions and their firms and enterprises. The knowledge image, the human competence and the reputation of their public and private institutions and corporations profiles a city. It attracts investment, qualified labour and professionals, as well as students and researchers. And it creates local life spaces and professional milieus, which offer the quality of life to the citizens that are seeking to cope with the challenges of modern life in a competitive world. Integrating knowledge-based development in urban strategies and policies, beyond the provision of schools and locations for higher education, has become a new ambitious arena of city politics. Coming from theory to practice, and bringing together the manifold knowledge stakeholders in a city and preparing joint visions for the knowledge city is a new challenge for city managers, urban planners and leaders of the civic society . It requires visionary power, creativity, holistic thinking, the willingness to cooperate with all groups of the local civil society, and the capability to moderate communication processes to overcome conflicts and to develop joint action for a sustainable future. This timely Melbourne 2010 – The Third Knowledge City World Summit makes an important reminder that ‘knowledge’ is the key notion in the 21st Century development. Considering this notion, the summit aims to shed light on the multi-faceted dimensions and various scales of building the ‘knowledge city’ and on ‘knowledge-based development’ paradigms. At this summit, the theoretical and practical maturing of knowledge-based development paradigms will be advanced through the interplay between the world’s leading academic’s theories and the practical models and strategies of practitioners’ and policy makers’ drawn from around the world. As chairs of The Melbourne 2010 Summit, we have compiled this summit proceeding in order to disseminate the knowledge generated and shared in Melbourne with the wider research, governance, and practice communities. The papers in the proceedings reflect the broad range of contributions to the summit. They report on recent developments in planning and managing knowledge cities and ICT infrastructure, they assess the role of knowledge institutions in regional innovation systems and of the intellectual capital of cities and regions; they describe the evolution of knowledge-based approaches to urban development in differing cultural environments; they finally bridge the discourse on the knowledge city to other urban development paradigms such as the creative city, the ubiquitous city or the compact city. The diversity of papers presented shows how different scholars from planning cultures around the world interpret the knowledge dimension in urban and regional development. All papers of this proceeding have gone through a double-blind peer review process and been reviewed by our summit editorial review and advisory board members. We cordially thank the members of the Summit Proceeding Editorial Review and Advisory Board for their diligent work in the review of the papers. We hope the papers in this proceeding will inspire and make a significant contribution to the research, governance, and practice circles.

The 4th Knowledge Cities World Summit Proceedings

FROM KCWS 2011 CHAIRS AND SUMMIT PROCEEDING EDITORS In recent years, with the impact of global knowledge economy, a more comprehensive development approach has gained significant popularity. This new development approach, so called ‘knowledgebased development’, is different from its traditional predecessor. With a much more balanced focus on all of the four key development domains – economic, enviro-urban, institutional, and sociocultural – this contemporary approach, aims to bring economic prosperity, environmental sustainability and local institutional competence with a just socio-spatial order to our cities and regions. The ultimate goal of knowledge-based development is to produce a city purposefully designed to encourage the continuous production, circulation and commercialisation of social and scientific knowledge – this will in turn establish a ‘knowledge city’. A city following the ‘knowledge city’ concept embarks on a strategic mission to firmly encourage and nurture locally focussed innovation, science and creativity within the context of an expanding knowledge economy and society. In this regard a ‘knowledge city’ can be seen as an integrated city, which physically and institutionally combines the functions of a science and technology park with civic and residential functions and urban amenities. It also offers one of the effective paradigms for the sustainable cities of our time. This fourth edition of KCWS – The 4th Knowledge Cities World Summit 2011 – makes an important reminder that the 'knowledge city' concept is a key notion in the 21st Century development. Considering this notion, the Summit sheds light on the multi-faceted dimensions and various scales of building a ‘knowledge city’ via 'knowledge-based development' paradigm by particularly focusing on the overall Summit theme of ‘Knowledge Cities for Future Generations’. At this summit, the theoretical and practical maturing of knowledge-based development paradigms are advanced through the interplay between the world’s leading academics’ theories and the practical models and strategies of practitioners’ and policy makers’ drawn from around the world. This summit proceeding is compiled in order to disseminate the knowledge generated and shared in KCWS 2011 with the wider research, governance, and practice communities the knowledge cocreated in this summit. All papers of this proceeding have gone through a double-blind peer review process and been reviewed by our summit editorial review and advisory board members. We, organisers of the summit, cordially thank the members of the Summit Proceeding Editorial Review and Advisory Board for their diligent work in the review of the papers. We hope the papers in this proceeding will inspire and make a significant contribution to the research, governance, and practice circles.

Neoliberal social inclusion? The agenda of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance

University–community engagement (UCE) represents a hybrid discourse and a set of practices within contemporary higher education. As a modality of research and teaching, ‘engagement’ denotes the process of universities forming partnerships with external communities for the promised generation of mutually beneficial and socially responsive knowledge, leading to enhanced economic, social and cultural developments. A critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge) of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance’s (AUCEA) ‘Position Paper’(2008 Universities and community engagement (Position paper 2008–2010)), as reported in this article, suggests that its uneasy synthesis of neoliberal, social inclusion and civic engagement discourses into a hybrid UCE discourse semantically privileges neoliberal forms of engagement. Perhaps, as a result, the AUCEA seems to have missed an opportunity to influence the Australian ‘widening participation’ debate on securing access and opportunity for marginalised students at universities and building social and cultural capital within their communities of origin.

Young people and the struggle for public space in Australia

Public Space is important to the overall health and wellbeing of children and young people in allowing them to explore their local and wider community, meet up with friends, get some exercise and feel included in the society in which they live. A problem exists in the capacity of modern, urban public space to genuinely accommodate children and young people’s need to experience excitement and fun in what has been termed “unprogrammed space” (Lynch 1977:71), or simply to ‘hang out’ in unstructured social space, with control by civic authorities a key concern. For many children and young people, their experiences of attempting to use public space are sometimes marred by the denial of everyday rights and courtesies, in youth ‘unfriendly’ spaces and this is often the case in shopping centres in Australia as expolored in this paper.

In pursuit of an architecture realism

The noble idea of studying seminal works to ‘see what we can learn’ has turned in the 1990s into ‘let’s see what we can take’ and in the last decade a more toxic derivative ‘what else can’t we take’. That is my observation as a student of architecture in the 1990s, and as a practitioner in the 2000s. In 2010, the sense that something is ending is clear. The next generation is rising and their gaze has shifted. The idea of classification (as a means of separation) was previously rejected by a generation of Postmodernists; the usefulness of difference declined. It’s there in the presence of plurality in the resulting architecture, a decision to mine history and seize in a willful manner. This is a process of looking back but never forward. It has been a mono-culture of absorption. The mono-culture rejected the pursuit of the realistic. It is a blanket suffocating all practice of architecture in this country from the mercantile to the intellectual. Independent reviews of Australia’s recent contributions to the Venice Architecture Biennales confirm the malaise. The next generation is beginning to reconsider classification as a means of unification. By acknowledging the characteristics of competing forces it is possible to bring them into a state of tension. Seeking a beautiful contrast is a means to a new end. In the political setting, this is described by Noel Pearson as the radical centre[1]. The concept transcends the political and in its most essential form is a cultural phenomenon. It resists the compromised position and suggests that we can look back while looking forward. The radical centre is the only demonstrated opportunity where it is possible to pursue a realistic architecture. A realistic architecture in Australia may be partially resolved by addressing our anxiety of permanence. Farrelly’s built desires[2] and Markham’s ritual demonstrations[3] are two ways into understanding the broader spectrum of permanence. But I think they are downstream of our core problem. Our problem, as architects, is that we are yet to come to terms with this place. Some call it landscape others call it country. Australian cities were laid out on what was mistaken for a blank canvas. On some occasions there was the consideration of the landscape when it presented insurmountable physical obstacles. The architecture since has continued to work on its piece of a constantly blank canvas. Even more ironic is the commercial awards programs that represent a claim within this framework but at best can only establish a dialogue within itself. This is a closed system unable to look forward. It is said that Melbourne is the most European city in the southern hemisphere but what is really being described there is the limitation of a senseless grid. After all, if Dutch landscape informs Dutch architecture why can’t the Australian landscape inform Australian architecture? To do that, we would have to acknowledge our moribund grasp of the meaning of the Australian landscape. Or more precisely what Indigenes call Country[4]. This is a complex notion and there are different ways into it. Country is experienced and understood through the senses and seared into memory. If one begins design at that starting point it is not unreasonable to think we can arrive at an end point that is a counter trajectory to where we have taken ourselves. A recent studio with Masters students confirmed this. Start by finding Country and it would be impossible to end up with a building looking like an Aboriginal man’s face. To date architecture in Australia has overwhelmingly ignored Country on the back of terra nullius. It can’t seem to get past the picturesque. Why is it so hard? The art world came to terms with this challenge, so too did the legal establishment, even the political scene headed into new waters. It would be easy to blame the budgets of commerce or the constraints of program or even the pressure of success. But that is too easy. Those factors are in fact the kind of limitations that opportunities grow out of. The past decade of economic plenty has, for the most part, smothered the idea that our capitals might enable civic settings or an architecture that is able to looks past lot line boundaries in a dignified manner. The denied opportunities of these settings to be prompted by the Country they occupy is criminal. The public realm is arrested in its development because we refuse to accept Country as a spatial condition. What we seem to be able to embrace is literal and symbolic gestures usually taking the form of a trumped up art installations. All talk – no action. To continue to leave the public realm to the stewardship of mercantile interests is like embracing derivative lending after the global financial crisis.Herein rests an argument for why we need a resourced Government Architect’s office operating not as an isolated lobbyist for business but as a steward of the public realm for both the past and the future. New South Wales is the leading model with Queensland close behind. That is not to say both do not have flaws but current calls for their cessation on the grounds of design parity poorly mask commercial self interest. In Queensland, lobbyists are heavily regulated now with an aim to ensure integrity and accountability. In essence, what I am speaking of will not be found in Reconciliation Action Plans that double as business plans, or the mining of Aboriginal culture for the next marketing gimmick, or even discussions around how to make buildings more ‘Aboriginal’. It will come from the next generation who reject the noxious mono-culture of absorption and embrace a counter trajectory to pursue an architecture of realism.

Public space and the marginalisation of children and young people

Throughout Australia (and elsewhere in the world) public spaces are under attack by developers and also attempts by civic authorities to regulate, restrict and reframe them. A consequence of the increasingly security driven, privatised and surveilled nature of public space is the exclusion and displacement of those considered flawed and unwelcome in the “spectacular” consumption spaces of major urban centres. In this context of monitoring and control procedures, children and young people’s use of public space in parks, neighbourhoods, shopping malls and streets is often viewed as a threat to social order, requiring various forms of punitive and/or remedial action. This paper discusses developments in the surveillance, governance and control of public space used by children and young people in particular and the capacity for their displacement and marginality, diminishing their sense of belonging, wellbeing and right to public space as an expression of social, political and civil citizenship.

Examining the rhetoric : a comparison of how sustainability and young children's participation and agency are framed in Australian and Swedish early childhood education curricula

This article scrutinizes the ways that young children are described and supported as active participants for change within the Australian and Swedish national steering documents for early childhood education. A critical theory lens was applied in combination with document analysis that looked for concepts related to environment and sustainability i.e. environmental, social, economic and political dimension of development, humans place in nature, and environmental stewardship. Concepts concerned with critical thinking, and children as active participants for change were used as specific dimensions of curriculum interpretation. Analyses show that, while both the Australian and Swedish curricula deal with content connected to environmental, social and cognitive dimensions, there is limited or no discussion of the political dimensions of human development, such as children as active citizens with political agency. In other words, children are not recognised as competent beings or agents of change for sustainability within these early childhood curriculum frameworks. Hence, these supposedly contemporary early childhood education documents lack curricular leadership to support children to contribute their voices and actions to civic and public spheres of participation as equal citizens.

Day in the Lab : Urban Informatics Research Lab, Queensland University of Technology

The Urban Informatics Research Lab brings together a group of people who focus their research on interdisciplinary topics at the intersection of social, spatial, and technical research domains—that is, people, place, and technology. Those topics are spread across the breadth of urban life—its contemporary issues and its needs, as well as the design opportunities that we have as individuals, groups, communities, and as a whole society. The lab’s current research areas include urban planning and design, civic innovation, mobility and transportation, education and connected learning, environmental sustainability, and food and urban agriculture. The common denominator of the lab’s approach is user-centered design research directed toward understanding, conceptualizing, developing, and evaluating sociotechnical practices as well as the opportunities afforded by innovative digital technology in urban environments.

Digital Spring? New media and new politics on the campus

Whilst the dynamics informing processes have taken time to become clear, civic resistance initiated by young people using new media began in Egypt in 2010 against the Mubarak regime, soon widened to Tunisia, Yemen and Libya. Known as the 'Arab Spring', this phenomenon re-ignited discussion about the political role of digital space and its democratic potential. While parallels between authoritarian regimes and universities and educational institutions might seem overdrawn to some readers, I suggest there is value in considering the 'Digital Spring' (apropos the 'Arab Spring') as a metaphor to suggest the possibility that similar processes are taking place in schools and universities. This invites discussion about the political significance of digital space and its democratic potential in those institutions. To assess how some young people engage in digitally mediated politics within schools and universities, I identify five propositions which amalgamate descriptive and normative elements derived from Habermas and Dahlgren. These propositions offer an ideal taxonomy of normative and descriptive elements to establish whether digital technology promotes participation and debate in ways that sustain democratic practice.

The political in the age of the digital: propositions for empirical investigation

This article establishes whether there is a case for revising traditional accounts of politics and the public sphere given the ways in which digital technology is now being used in Western and non-Western settings to engage people politically. The article presents a case for framing this inquiry in terms of imaginaries. It then argues for a new political imaginary which helps to specify what is required for deliberative democratic practice in a way that shifts us away from the dominant liberal-utilitarian political imaginary that currently informs the political value systems of most Western nations. Drawing on the work of key political theorists such as Habermas and Dahlgren, five propositions or conditions for deliberative practice are identified that can be used in empirical investigation to help determine the democratic capacity and potential of new political communication and civic spaces being opened by means of digital media.

FixVegas

From blocked drains to damaged street signs, rubbish or graffiti, FixVegas allows users to send fix-o-gram requests directly to Brisbane City Council. Users FixVegas snap a photo of the problem and the fix-o-gram is submitted to Council along with the location information of the issue that is being reported.

Urban citizenship in a sensor rich society

Urban public spaces are sutured with a range of surveillance and sensor technologies that claim to enable new forms of ‘data based citizen participation’, but also increase the tendency for ‘function-creep’, whereby vast amounts of data are gathered, stored and analysed in a broad application of urban surveillance. This kind of monitoring and capacity for surveillance connects with attempts by civic authorities to regulate, restrict, rebrand and reframe urban public spaces. A direct consequence of the increasingly security driven, policed, privatised and surveilled nature of public space is the exclusion or ‘unfavourable inclusion’ of those considered flawed and unwelcome in the ‘spectacular’ consumption spaces of many major urban centres. In the name of urban regeneration, programs of securitisation, ‘gentrification’ and ‘creative’ and ‘smart’ city initiatives refashion public space as sites of selective inclusion and exclusion. In this context of monitoring and control procedures, in particular, children and young people’s use of space in parks, neighbourhoods, shopping malls and streets is often viewed as a threat to the social order, requiring various forms of remedial action. This paper suggests that cities, places and spaces and those who seek to use them, can be resilient in working to maintain and extend democratic freedoms and processes enshrined in Marshall’s concept of citizenship, calling sensor and surveillance systems to account. Such accountability could better inform the implementation of public policy around the design, build and governance of public space and also understandings of urban citizenship in the sensor saturated urban environment.

Urban citizenship in a sensor rich society

Urban public spaces are sutured with a range of surveillance and sensor technologies that claim to enable new forms of ‘data based citizen participation’, but also increase the tendency for ‘function-creep’, whereby vast amounts of data are gathered, stored and analysed in a broad application of urban surveillance. This kind of monitoring and capacity for surveillance connects with attempts by civic authorities to regulate, restrict, rebrand and reframe urban public spaces. A direct consequence of the increasingly security driven, policed, privatised and surveilled nature of public space is the exclusion or ‘unfavourable inclusion’ of those considered flawed and unwelcome in the ‘spectacular’ consumption spaces of many major urban centres. This paper suggests that cities, places and spaces and those who seek to use them, can be resilient in working to maintain and extend democratic freedoms and processes enshrined in Marshall’s concept of citizenship, calling sensor and surveillance systems to account. Such accountability could better inform the implementation of public policy around the design, build and governance of public space and also understandings of urban citizenship in the sensor saturated urban environment.

Citizens and social media in times of natural disaster: Exploring information experience

Introduction. Social media is becoming a vital source of information in disaster or emergency situations. While a growing number of studies have explored the use of social media in natural disasters by emergency staff, military personnel, medial and other professionals, very few studies have investigated the use of social media by members of the public. The purpose of this paper is to explore citizens’ information experiences in social media during times of natural disaster. Method. A qualitative research approach was applied. Data was collected via in-depth interviews. Twenty-five people who used social media during a natural disaster in Australia participated in the study. Analysis. Audio recordings of interviews and interview transcripts provided the empirical material for data analysis. Data was analysed using structural and focussed coding methods. Results. Eight key themes depicting various aspects of participants’ information experience during a natural disaster were uncovered by the study: connected; wellbeing; coping; help; brokerage; journalism; supplementary and characteristics. Conclusion. This study contributes insights into social media’s potential for developing community disaster resilience and promotes discussion about the value of civic participation in social media when such circumstances occur. These findings also contribute to our understanding of information experiences as a new informational research object.