24 2016/03 S+ROThemaUrban AgendaBottom-up agendaEuropean citiesBram HeijkersPlatform31bram.heijkers@platform31.nlA multi-purpose restaurant, a Muslimgay pride movement and an upgradedsociety. These are only three of themany ideas that social innovatorsfrom ten European countries came upwith, while thinking about the futureof European cities. More green spaces,better public transport and strongerurban communities are the three urbanchallenges most frequently mentionedby some three hundred participantswho join the SEiSMiC-programme.SEiSMiC (box 1 on page 30) consistsof ten so-called National Networksof social innovators. In 2014 theseNetworks defined the most importanturban issues up to 2050. At the SEiSMiCLaunching Event in November 2014these issues were clustered in threemajor themes: 1 New urban governance 2 New public space 3 New urban economyThe three themes were then discussedduring three successive SEiSMiCForums in 2015-2016. For all themes,research questions and policy recom-mendations were formulated. The re-search questions were used as input forthe Strategic Research and InnovationAgenda (SRIA). Also mentioned manytimes are a European level playing fieldfor all instead of only for big companies,easy (open) access to relevant informa-tion, giving social value a much moreprominent place in urban development,and the need to create new, public-private business models. >>Bottom-up agendaS+RO 2016/03 25ThemaUrban AgendaBottom-up agendaEuropean citiesKriszti?n's dreamfor European citiesDieter's hood soupResults for Dutch NaNetThe Dutch NaNet defined nine urbanchallenges ranging from more atten-tion for participatory democracy toreducing diverse social gaps in order tointegrate the sharing economy into theexisting economy (scheme 1 on page31). Many of these challenges cameup in other countries as well. Therewere also differences, for example inWestern European countries demo-cratic challenges were defined in adifferent way than in Eastern Europeancountries. And a theme such as urbanagriculture is perceived very differentlyin Rome, for example where it is farmore common, than in dense London orAmsterdam, where green urban spacesare rare. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/47-per-cent-of-london-is-green-space-is-it-time-for-our-capital-to-become-a-national-park-9756470.html]26 2016/03 S+ROThemaUrban AgendaBottom-up agendaEuropean citiesS+RO 2016/03 27ThemaUrban AgendaBottom-up agendaEuropean citiesNew urban governanceWho rules the city, and how? Mostagree this should in one way or anotherbe a broad coalition of social innova-tors, politicians, and social and com-mercial entrepreneurs, tackling urbanchallenges in both formal and infor-mal ways. But this is not happeningeverywhere. More direct democracyis needed by many social innovators,especially in the light of the big chal-lenges ahead of us.This leads to an important policy andresearch issue: how does participatorydemocracy relate to representative de-mocracy? Who decides about where tobuild a waste plant, or close a commu-nity centre? The elected city council ora group of very active neighbourhoodvolunteers?Closely related to this is the issue ofmoney: who decides about budgets?One of the ideas that came up fromSEiSMiC is to earmark five to ten per-cent of public budgets for funding asyet unknown initiatives and ideas thatcome up during the budget year. Thissuggestion leads to questions such aswhat information, education, commu-nication and interpretation is needed toensure that spending of and accounta-bility for this five to ten percent budget(free to the community) runs smoothly?And to questions about how to createa better balance between risk manage-ment and trust. Social innovators arenot always able to meet high demandand expensive risk management. Onthe other hand, politicians and auditorsshould realise that many professionalsand entrepreneurs make mistakes too,even if they have met the necessaryrequirements on paper.Yet another interesting issue is whensmall, social initiatives develop into for-mal organisations, and what this meansfor the potential success or failure ofsocial innovation. One suggestion fromthe Dutch NaNet was to see how thecooperative way of working can beencouraged, as a way to tackle insti-tutionalisation of initiatives. An addedaspect was to check the possibilitiesfor cooperation in different cultures(ethnicity, religion, socio-cultural va-lues or education) as an alternative to acapitalistic way of working.A much-heard policy recommendationis to provide easily-accessible, opendata systems with relevant informa-tion, available to all. This will preventcitizens from having to search (unpaid)for days to find correct data to respondto EU research findings, policies or callrounds, compared to commercial en-terprises (welfare, management, care)that usually have easier access and/or sufficient funds to pay someone tofind relevant information. In EU policyterms: ensure a level playing field oninformation.Other research questions are: What are the consequences of dif-ferent mindsets and organisationalset-ups in cities and villages for suc-cessful social innovation?; how far can we go with digitisation?Specific groups will never be ableto deal with it fully, ensure a cleardistinction is created between thosewho can or cannot handle digitalinformation; how to increase the use of storytel-ling in research and policy making?A last, strong request from the socialinnovators about the new urban gover-nance was to stimulate social innova-tion among ambassadors, participatorycity labs and experiments and be opento new ways of policymaking. One ofthe international SEiSMiC initiatives,SIAC (Social Innovation Accelerationin Cities: www.siac.network) aims atfilling part of this need by initiating atransnational working group of socialinnovators and accelerators, exchan-ging experiences and using the sametechnical platform to exchange rele-vant data.New public spaceCo-design, co-creation and ownershipare the buzz-words during the SEiSMiCForum on `New public space'. The parti-cipants agreed that, in addition to theknowledge of professionals ? archi-tects, landscape architects >>28 2016/03 S+ROThemaUrban AgendaBottom-up agendaEuropean citiesIrmak's mixed religion squareS+RO 2016/03 29ThemaUrban AgendaBottom-up agendaEuropean citiesand security specialists ? residents andusers of public space also have valuableexperience-based and academic know-ledge about designing attractive publicspace. Timely and appropriate use ofthis will lead to both a higher qualityof the public space and a sense amongcitizens of having a real impact on theirown living space.The big challenge is how to achieveinclusive, long-term and effectiveprocesses to co-design and co-createinnovative solutions for green andvibrant public spaces. This question isadded as one of the specific questionsin the SRIA. The second important topicregarding new public space is that ofownership. There was broad concernin SEiSMiC that public space is beingincreasingly sold off to private owners,and used for private interests. An archi-tect from Graz, for example, noted thatpublic land all over Austria has beenredistributed from direct public owner-ship to ownership by publicly control-led holding companies. This makes itmuch easier for these properties to besold to private interests, where theyare forever lost for further public use.Other participants noted the commonpractice of public spaces being rentedout as pay-for-admission events. Therewas no objection to temporary privateuse of public space, just as long asit stays temporary. No privatisationplease!Ownership is also an important issuefor social innovators looking for spaceto organise their activities. Many socialinnovators lack a place or a building oftheir own or for the community, whichleads to constant uncertainty, squat-ting, or sometimes having to pay highrents to get access to a place. A strongpolicy request has been made to pro-vide spaces, to allow flexible use and togive freedom to enable social initiativesto lead to new uses of space. >>30 2016/03 S+ROThemaUrban AgendaBottom-up agendaEuropean citiesNew urban economyThe exchange of views on the `Newurban economy' led to various researchquestions and practical suggestions. Animportant issue for many social inno-vators is to develop combined privateand public revenue models to be able toearn a living with social innovation andenterprise. The work of social entre-preneurs is often appreciated but whenit comes to allowing them to receivesome financial revenues then reactionsare often that it is difficult to assesstheir added financial value. Socialentrepreneurs have a strong need forsocial impact assessment and indica-tors in order to show the value addedby a social initiative, and the overallimpact (long term, soft values). Theyalso ask for social values to be given amuch more prominent place in urbandevelopment, in addition to financialvalue.Another much discussed topic is therise of the sharing or collaborative eco-nomy. Important research questionsrelated to this are: how psychologicalaspects of inclusion and exclusion andthe cultural background of people influ-ence the sharing behaviour. To assessthe negative challenges of the collabo-rative economy, ask whether it leadsto a more sustainable future. If peopleshare more (efficient use of resources)and, having saved that money, thenspend it on more travel by plane, theenvironmental balance might even beworse than if people don't share.A third issue is the `struggle' betweensocial values and efficiency. Afterhaving started out as a way to solvesocial issues on vacant spaces, orthe ability to use a car now and then,Airbnb and Uber have now become big,efficient companies. Desirable or not?Urban agriculture is a fourth, much-mentioned issue in the new urbaneconomy. Knowing where food comesAbout SEiSMICFrom January 2014 till November 2016 the European SEiSMiC project (Socie-tal Engagement in Science, Mutual learning in Cities) helps tackle Europe'sbiggest urban problems by engaging citizens, identifying social innovationneeds, and contributing to future urban policies and research strategies. Itbuilds diverse networks of social innovators and urban stakeholders to pro-pose effective, widely agreed solutions. It then engages the public in creativeways, so that research learns from citizens, and citizens learn from research.The ten countries participating are: Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, TheNetherlands, Austria, the Czech Republic, Turkey, the United Kingdom, andSweden. SEiSMiC is closely linked to the JPI Urban Europe research program-me and has added valuable content for the Strategic Research and Inno-vation Agenda (SRIA).More information: www.seismicproject.eu and www.jpi-urbaneurope.eu.SEiSMiC's futureThe SEiSMiC programme will end on the first of November 2016, but its resultshave already been taken up in the SRIA and, through that, in the next JPI UrbanEurope calls round. And the idea of stakeholder involvement in European urbanresearch is also guaranteed through the JPI UE Stakeholder Board that will beinstalled in November as a follow-up to SEiSMiC. Some of the international con-tacts and networks established during the programme will also continue. Theenduring effects of the mutual learning during SEiSMiC are hard to measure, butthey are there beyond any doubt.As a continuous source of inspiration the results of SEiSMiC consultation ofsocial innovators can always be seen on the many sketches that have beenmade during the first months of SEiSMiC. Some have been used to illustrate thisarticle, all are to be found on this website http://www.seismicproject.eu/index.php?page=arthur-s-blog.More information on SEiSMiC can be found on http://www.seismicproject.eu/netherlands/.from, reducing the transport distancesand pesticides needed and using localfood production as a means to increasesocial cohesion are important themesto attract interest in urban agriculture.Interesting, related research questionsare to find out what the advantagesof urban agriculture are for povertyreduction, health care and talentdevelopment, and how to create andimprove joint distribution systems.Making that changeCreate a level playing field, provide easyaccess to data, stimulate entrepreneur-ship and facilitate new business modelsand tools for impact measuring: allthese sound like `professional' requestsfor the European Commission, althoughin this case they have been made bysocial innovators, initiators and entre-preneurs. No big difference there, itS+RO 2016/03 31ThemaUrban AgendaBottom-up agendaEuropean citiesMajor urban challenges SEiSMiCNetherlandsseems. Nevertheless, these people havetoo often been seen as very valuablebut not professional (enough) to be realpartners in the institutionalised worldof urban policy makers, researchersand companies.The example of SEiSMiC, initiated bythe European Commission, is a signalthat this attitude is changing. SEiS-MiC has resulted in lessons learnt toaccelerate these partnerships. And atthe same time shows the need to allowmore experiments, rethink the conceptof ownership of buildings, land or thecity, and adapt the architecture ofurban policy-making and research. Thenext years will be crucial for making achange to better balanced urban plan-ning. Bram Heijkers (Platform31) is coordina-tor of SEiSMiC Netherlands.Reduce diverse social gaps (have-havenots, high and low education,digitally literate and illiterateMake education futureproof, includeattention for crafts and co-educate withschools, parents and neighbourhoodCreae more self-supporting, resilientlocal and national economic systems(food, energy, care)Measure and monetize social impactand immaterial value creationRedefine role (local) government andcivil serviceMore attention for participatorydemocracy and local networksAccept and integrate sharing economyin existing ec. practiceBroaden level plauing field policiesinclude social innovatorsMajor Urban Challenges SEiSMiCNetherlandsAdept to 21th century labour market