"People are not even aware that they are doing something socially innovative." This statement is a recurring theme when dealing with social innovation (SI) in the academic and policymaking context. Although there is a significant body of literature on social innovation and interdisciplinary research programmes have gained a visible impact1 over time, there seems to be a gap between debating and doing social innovation. Catchwords such as scalability, institutionalization, the third sector and bottom-up practices illustrate the range of interest in SI, while self-organized citizens and grass-roots organisations apply counteracting mechanisms in their daily practices.  

Perspectives on an emerging field in planning and urban studies

/_files_media/werke/inhaltsverzeichnis/9783700183334_inhaltsverzeichnis.pdf

Social Innovation in Urban and Regional Development

This policy handbook discusses the policy-relevant results of the JPI Urban Europe project “Interethnic Coexistence in European Cities” (ICEC). A more detailed documentation of the research approach, methodology and local results on Amsterdam, Stockholm and Vienna can be found in various publications available for download from www.icecproject.com



There is not one specific mode of interethnic coexistence – neither in the same city nor in the same neighbourhood. This is one remarkable fact uncovered by the authors of this report during their intensive field research. Interethnic coexistence works in many different ways and is extremely diverse. In our interviews, coexistence, for example in Vienna, generated such polarised messages as “[…] they have their own communities, where they meet and don’t want to have contact with us”, but also this statement of an Austrian lady: “With Turkish residents one gets a different kind of contact, as there is immediate understanding and openness [...]”. The quality of coexistence and the quantity of interethnic interaction are as heterogeneous as the case study neighbourhoods and individuals with whom we spoke. Patterns of interethnic relations are clearly marked by the social and economic status of the neighbourhoods, but are also influenced to a lesser degree by the proportion of the migrant population and the ethnic mix.



The ICEC project compared neighbourhood initiatives in Amsterdam, Stockholm and Vienna and considers their effect on local interethnic coexistence and neighbourhood belonging. The study focused on three core questions:

1. Which local initiatives best support and strengthen the integrative power of urban neighbourhoods as places of living and identification for an ethnically diverse population?

2. How does participation in such local initiatives and the initiatives themselves impact the neighbourhood belonging of local residents?

3. What kinds of differences can be found between (non)participation in top-down and bottom-up initiatives? 

A policy handbook

/_files_media/werke/inhaltsverzeichnis/9783700182009_inhaltsverzeichnis.pdf

Interethnic Coexistence in European Cities

Public spaces are important places in city and urban life. The functions ascribed to public space are broad, ranging from political representation, the possibility of political protest and demonstration, to economic use (such as street markets) and the politics of memory. They are also places where different expectations and interests are negotiated. Public spaces are arenas of social life and interaction, and an irreplaceable characteristic of the European city. In the context of both a growing and increasingly diversified city and a neoliberal urban development model, to what extent can the development processes that manifest in public space still be steered? There are stark differences in the reception of public space, its qualities and accessibility (or lack of), which lead to conflicts between different actors about the conditions of its use.

This publication provides a comprehensive overview on theoretical debates, methodological approaches and implementation of public space analyses. 

Understanding Public Spaces

Unravelling Complexities

FITTING IN – HOUSING AND PLANNING FOR NEW YORK CITY’S FUTURE  | RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION AND HOUSING INTEGRATION: POLICY CHALLENGES AND THEIR MANIFESTATION IN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, USA  | HOUSING AND SEGREGATION OF MIGRANTS: ANTWERP IN BELGIUM | HOUSING INTEGRATION OF IMMIGRANTS IN VIENNA – EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES? | HOUSING AND INTEGRATION IN THE CITY OF STUTTGART, GERMANY | CHALLENGES TO LOCAL HOUSING POLICIES OF MIGRANTS IN EUROPE | Contributors | List of Tables, List of Figures, List of Maps

Both European and American cities, in particular major cities with strong and diversified economies, attract immigrants from all over the world. The segregation of migrants within a city as well as the affordability and quality of housing for migrants are central issues that affect the quality of life in general. Finding a place to live is a crucial aspect of the process of successful structural integration of migrants in host societies – besides finding employment and gaining access to good education. On the one hand, the housing conditions and the spatial distribution patterns of migrants in a city can be considered important indicators for the status quo of the structural integration in the receiving society; on the other hand, housing policies are an important part of overall social policy at the local level – with a strong impact on future processes of integration among migrants and their descendants. Beginning in June 2009 the Institute for Urban and Regional Research organized a seminar on integration policies at the local level with a special emphasis on housing policy for migrants. The seminar was supported by the GMF (German Marshall Fund of the United States) and was part of the policy initiative “Immigration and Integration” of the GMF. The seminar was a 2-day event at the University of Vienna comprising lectures, excursions and a political debate with representatives of the media and the city of Vienna. The seminar served to enable communication between researchers, stakeholders and journalists from the United States and from Vienna, to initiate the mutual learning process, and to compare and evaluate market-driven and social welfare housing policy. The Institute for Urban and Regional Research invited prominent scholars from the United States and from throughout Europe to hold lectures and to try to answer the following questions: What is the present situation concerning immigration, the foreign population and its demographic development? What are the typical housing conditions for migrants in the specific urban contexts? What are the public policies of local authorities on housing in general, in particular housing conditions for vulnerable and low-income groups? What is the situation surrounding the availability, access and affordability of decent housing for migrants within the framework of national and regional policies? And finally: What are the experiences of European and North American cities with the results of local policies on housing, in particular of interventions and measures, for the integration of migrants and the social cohesion of their communities? We found the answers presented during the seminar to be innovative and interesting, and we decided to publish the lectures to give a wider audience the chance to participate in this debate. It is obvious that the transatlantic dialogue is becoming weaker and the cooperation within Europe stronger, which was an additional motivation to publish the results to signal that the Europe-US dialogue should continue. 

Examples from New York City, St. Paul, Antwerp, Vienna and Stuttgart. Contribution of a Transatlantic Discourse in the Framework of a German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) Project

/_files_media/werke/inhaltsverzeichnis/9783700168539_inhaltsverzeichnis.pdf

Yvonne Franz

Produkte

Social Innovation in Urban and Regional Development

Interethnic Coexistence in European Cities

Unravelling Complexities

Integration Policies at the Local Level: Housing Policies for Migrants