The city is a complex socio-technical system, where stakeholders with very different needs and values live together. Usually, when developing urban interventions, policymakers consider as stakeholders citizens grouped by different characteristics such as income, cultural background, or age, depending on the specific case. We argue this is a limited definition, as our cities are also ecosystems inhabited by a wide array of (non-human) species. In particular, in the context of developing climate resilient cities, it is crucial to consider the environment itself a stakeholder when developing urban policies. Here, the anthropocentrism typical of human-centered design methodologies is a limiting factor, as it allows to tailor the designed solutions only around people's benefits, ignoring the context (e.g., the environment) and the long-term effects. While everyone agrees it is important to consider the long-term effect on the ecosystem, it is difficult for people to really imagine the consequences for the environment. Bringing together arts and AI, we propose a novel approach to reinventing the city that moves beyond our current generations to include future generations and non-human perspectives; we want to explore how AI can complement creative storytelling and role-playing methods to expand the boundaries of human-centered methods. In particular, we want to explore how new technologies can make the creative experience more tangible (e.g., by means of virtual and augmented reality); how they can allow to reach a wider and more diverse set of perspectives; and, how they can be used to create a responsive environment that allows for more complex creative processes, not possible within traditional methods.

This paper examines the tension between political efforts to implement climate goals in urban planning and design and the acceptance of climate adaptation measures at the local level. We hypothesise that, while there is consensus on the desirability of climate goals, the implementation of such concerns can lead to conflicts causing delay or hindrance. We argue that a holistic understanding of the causes and motivations for protests and resistance, often described as NIMBYsm, can help increase acceptance among citizens and inform governance processes. Our analysis focuses on the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area, especially on current initiatives and plans related to energy transition (wind turbines), mobility (traffic and parking restrictions), and urban water and heat management (urban greening). We report on a quantitative and qualitative discourse analysis covering articles from Dutch public media about climate resilience plans and the implementation of climate adaptation measures. Our study covers the period from 2015 to 2020, i.e., from the Paris Climate Agreement to the development of the Environmental Vision and the Climate Neutral Roadmap 2050. The analysis also considers publications of relevant public institutions and administrative bodies on climate goals and implementation strategies. Debates on large-scale environmental measures, such as flood control, tend to focus on public interest and compensation processes. Yet, when discussing climate adaptation measures in cities, private interests, e.g., the protection of ownership, property value, and character of place, often dominate. These arguments often reflect conflicting social values, such as perceived limitations of freedom of choice, but may also be related to a lack of influence in decision-making processes.

Changing urban context Cities around the world are shifting from the development of new areas (greenfield) to transforming and densifying existing areas. We see a lot of pressure on cities as more and more people are moving there. They need to grow and provide enough housing, amenities, green, etc. but often do not have unlimited land to expand to. They need to densify, fill in gaps, grow “over” more low-rise, suburban boroughs or transform older industrial areas. At the same time, they need to tackle a whole range of other challenges and transitions, like energy neutrality, circularity, food and climate resilience, mobility and accessibility issues and of course a lot of social and economic challenges as well. A controlled and linear (top-down) planning and development process is not working here, because we are often dealing with fragmented ownership and a lot of different big and small stakeholders in these areas who we need to actively engage. These are long processes in which a lot can happen, so we need to be extremely adaptive and resilient over time. Fundamentally different approach This shift brings with it an unprecedented level of complexity and unpredictability to urban planning and development and therefore requires a fundamentally different approach that incorporates the transition 1) from a sectoral to integral addressing of topics and challenges, 2) from a centralised to a distributed network and collaboration structure, and 3) from a linear to a more agile and incremental process over time. This together forms a substantial change in our work that requires our full awareness. We cannot just make a few adjustments in our processes here and there – and merely scratch the surface. We really need to grasp how the whole underlying model for this collaborative urban transformation needs to change first, before we can define which aspects we need to change and how. From urban design to urban transformation design For the past twelve years I have been fully dedicated to developing, testing and optimising a new and integral method for this collaborative urban transformation. This year I have finally taken the time to really synthesise and structure all my knowledge and experience and document it into one comprehensive method for easier distribution and replication to other cities and urban professionals to work with. Rather than designing the final image and then superimposing it on the existing situation, we design the entire transformation over time. This goes beyond only spatial or system plans and designs, we need to incorporate the design of the necessary engagement and branding and, of course, the financial and organisational support base as well to make the urban transformation a reality. We need to be highly integral in all our activities as they are all gears in the complete urban transformation machine. Our strategic model As an underlayment for this urban transformation machine, or a construction template if you like, we created our 7-layer model: a simple yet comprehensive framework that helps you to structure all activities into one integral and ongoing urban strategy. The model structurally combines and intertwines the more “heavy and tough” behind the scenes layers (orgware, hardware) and the “lighter, quicker” and very visible layers (software). You simultaneously work on all layers, keeping your focus on your long term goals while constantly moving forward with positive energy, growing support base and tangible results. The model also covers tooling and technology to support, augment and safeguard your work and the networks that grow over time. Best practice illustration After an introduction of my method and model, I will illustrate how they work in practice in Amstel III, one of Amsterdam’s largest and most complex transformation areas. Here I set up the award-winning field lab Glamourmanifest/ZO!City to develop and test my method and our own interactive online platform (Transformcity). Meanwhile I worked with various other public and private clients to further replicate and optimise the method and toolkit. Where I start my presentation by laying out the more abstract foundation of collaborative urban development and explain the strategic model underneath it, I will end with a very real and chronological illustration full of inspirational examples, insights and anecdotes.