Search

This chapter aims to research and debate on gentrification with a focus on the process of progressive commodification of urban space and urban culture at the street level. In ecological terms, if urban renewal can be compared to primary succession, the creation of a new ecosystem on a land cleared by an initial catastrophic event, gentrification is closer to secondary succession, where a new population of species takes over an established ecosystem. Discussing gentrification in terms of its phases gives a useful opportunity to summarise the main literature in the field and evaluate its progressive impact on street life and street culture. The flavour and ethnicity of the gentrifying neighbourhood are adopted for branding purposes, and newcomers start imposing their own culture and rhythms to the street life. The original edginess of the neighbourhood street culture is tamed and made more middle-class-friendly with the consequent exclusion of some of the original actors of the local street life.

We discuss three cases of transformative creative practice that aim to address large-scale societal issues related to the climate emergency by taking a series of interconnected, small-scale actions. Drawing on our first-hand perspectives, we reflect on how the cases address such issues by proliferating across different social contexts and supporting creative engagements of diverse stakeholders. We offer this empirical reflection at a time of rapid social and ecological change that has affected all life on the planet. Eco-social challenges and structural inequalities caused by shifts in global economic, political and technological power require new approaches and transformative actions to stabilize and restore ecosystems on which life depends. Our research shows that creative practice in art and design has a critical role to play in these processes of transformation. By discussing the opportunities and challenges encountered by our three cases within their transformative efforts and analyzing how they proliferate across diverse scales, we aim to expand the emerging scholarship on the transformative potential of creative practice., Funding Information: This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 870759. The content presented in this document represents the views of the authors, and the European Commission has no liability in respect of the content. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 ACM.; 13th Conference on Creativity and Cognition, C and C 2021 ; Conference date: 22-06-2021 Through 23-06-2021

There is widespread societal concern regarding the reduction in the amount of time that we all spend playing outdoors. Outdoor play can be important for our social and physical well-being and moreover helps us to connect to space, place and environment. Of course, the CHI community continues to explore play across many contexts; however, specifically designing for outdoor play remains underexplored. This workshop aims to bring together those who are interested in technological, social and design aspects of outdoor play for all ages. We will use participants' insights, energies and expertise to explore the challenges and focus on how we can build a community to share innovative designs, generate knowledge and make actionable research in this context.

This article offers a reflection on how we might co-design with and for care amid the era of digital economy through a critique of current approaches to supporting mental well-being outside of therapy. Lenses of care theory and posttraumatic growth guide this critique, examining six themes of creative approaches that have been identified through a thematic review of 83 existing interventions: online communities, digitisation and re-design of psychology intervention, biometrics and data-driven, creative sharing of stories, symbolic engagements, and creative offerings of comfort and encouragements of self-care. In particular, approaches that lie within the sharing economy are scrutinised, presenting neoliberal drives that oppose its values of fairness and equity. Involvement of trusted others in the co-design of care entanglements is proposed, suggesting that these involvements would allow for reciprocal care encounters to be personalised towards those who have experienced trauma and their trusted others.

This article reports on the findings of a study investigating creative risktaking behaviours of the commencing university students enrolled in three units across three disciplines: Interactive and Visual Design, Fashion Design, and Film, Screen and Animation. The study employs an action research methodology in order to help students develop confidence and competence in creative risk-taking. Upon analysis from relevant literature three key provisions for the study are proposed, being: P1 An open and playful learning environment that encourages sharing and challenging multiple perspectives; P2 An adequate period of time for students to develop and revise creative concepts; and P3 Opportunities to assess their own performance in developing creative risk-taking capacities. The study draws on the students’ written self-reflections to identify the key challenges and opportunities in encouraging creative risk-taking among first year students, which are challenges of collaboration; creative resilience and self-efficacy; and balancing creativity with technical competency. The article suggests several ways that educators can encourage students to take creative risks within higher education in preparation for careers in the creative industries.

In Australia there is a strong risk adverse culture, in part due to the widely acknowledged conservatism of the population. There is an expectation that the different levels of governments minimise chances of conflicts or accidents with top-down regulations; these generally focus on sanitising some specific aspect of everyday lives dealing with personal liability. As such, many Australian urban environments are highly regulated, zoned, and controlled. Also at social level, children are not only segregated in specific facilities where they can be protected from potential dangers of the broader society, but as users of “youth-friendly spaces” they are also divided according to age groups, gender and vocation. Parks and playground are often planned and designed with a specific demographic in mind; facilities for small children are never co-located with the ones for young adults. The latter often are designed for structured activities such as for sports or learning, with limited considerations about how unstructured playful activities might be encouraged for and enjoyed by older children. This chapter reports on four years of public consultation processes undertaken at different level of government and in different contexts within South-East Queensland, one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. Our findings suggest that the ‘playground’ is seen as the realm of the children, who feel unentitled to comment on the broader urban fabric. The chapter reflects on how South-East Queensland cities are designed in a regimented and perhaps fragmented way which tends to exclude or underrepresent certain categories of residents, including children. It then compares the social segregation and zoning of South-East Queensland cities to intergenerational approaches typical of other cultural contexts and draw some recommendations on how to bridge this segregation gap in Australian cities.

This paper presents a critical reflection on insights into the ongoing endeavours for community engagement by Ayara and MAL; two urban grassroots organisations in Bogota, Colombia, where a long history of internal conflicts has resulted in diverse human rights violations. The paper presents examples of the grassroots organisations’ unique methods of engagement that promotes building collective intelligence from the bottom-up through creative collaboration and design processes, leading to rebuilding social fabrics that support the common good for the people of Bogota.