Living theatrical approach to creative placemaking: the case of Xisan Film Studio project in China

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Xuan Xue ◽  
Zdravko Trivic ◽  
Puay Peng Ho
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 39-53
Author(s):  
Anna Marazuela Kim

While creative placemaking has proved a long-standing paradigm for the arts in city-making strategy, recently there has been a shift towards a cultural infrastructure approach. This article takes critical stock of this paradigm shift, to engage the broader question of whether we can design for culture in the built environment. Conceptualizing creative placemaking within a larger genealogical framework, I argue that this shift might be understood as responsive to some of the limitations and unintended social consequences of the movement: its temporal nature and contribution to cycles of gentrification and displacement.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (13) ◽  
pp. 345
Author(s):  
Nurul Atikah Ramli ◽  
Norsidah Ujang

As the rapid growth of cities continues to pose a significant threat to the well-being of people, its adverse effects have moved to the forefront of social sustainability. Urban regeneration has become one of the adaptations in solving a social issue. Alongside these interventions, creative placemaking emerges as an evolving field of practice driving a broader agenda for growth and transformation of cities. This paper reviews the concept of creative placemaking as an approach to urban regeneration and theories extracted from planning and urban design literature. The findings provide an understanding of the significant function of social attributes of place in crafting strategies in the creation of successful creative placemaking.Keywords: Urban regeneration; Creative placemaking; Urban places; Social sustainabilityeISSN: 2398-4287 © 2020. The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA cE-Bs by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open access article under the CC BYNC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v5i13.2056


Author(s):  
Gordon C.C. Douglas

Chapter 6 looks at the world of official urban planning and placemaking, providing different perspectives on its relationship to DIY urbanism. Through the voices of professional planners, the chapter explores their conflicted opinions on DIY approaches: criticizing their informality and emphasizing the importance of regulations and accountability for everything from basic functionality to social equity, yet sympathetic to do-it-yourselfers’ frustrations and often excited to adopt their tactics, harness their energy, and exploit their cultural value. The chapter then describes how some DIY projects have found pathways to formal adoption and inspired popular “tactical urbanism” and “creative placemaking” approaches to public space design. Many such interventions can result in innovative public spaces with social, environmental, and economic benefits. But the reproduction of an aesthetic experience selectively inspired by a hip grassroots trend and combined with “creative class” values can mark the resulting spaces themselves as elite and exclusionary.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zipporah D. Lockett
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Zitcer

Creative placemaking is an increasingly prevalent form of planning practice that invokes arts and culture as tools for revitalization. Planners, policymakers, funders, and practitioners are engaged in a discursive struggle to define what is meant by creative placemaking and what value it holds for cities. Using frameworks developed by Foucault and Hacking, I analyze the emergence and ongoing contestation of this term, contrasting the way creative placemaking is understood and enacted by actors in Philadelphia with definitions employed by national funders. I argue that practitioner and community voices deserve amplification in the unfinished work of creative placemaking as urban practice.


2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 213-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Gadwa Nicodemus

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document