How is paying attention to social infrastructure the key to an inclusive city?

Earlier this summer I found myself on stage, on a boat in Bornholm, debating the concept of the inclusive city. In Danish terms often referred to as a ‘mixed city’.

For those who don’t know me, you should know that prior to joining Gehl I was with the City of Copenhagen for a little short of a decade. Therefore ‘the inclusive city’ has been somewhat of a mantra for many years. But to be honest: it’s been a while since I stopped to consider what it even means.

I perceive the concept to be a ‘default’ principle in our collective thinking and approach to urban development. At least here in Copenhagen. And so, revisiting the term on the basis that we don’t really debate it anymore seemed grounds enough to pause and challenge our understanding. In the light of growing social divisions around the world, (re)questioning how an inclusive city can actually contribute to more inviting, kind and connected neighborhoods and communities feels timely and important.

So what’s in the toolbox for urban planners and city officials who aspire to create inclusive places? And where might we be falling short in implementing it?

Public spaces: key drivers of social interaction

In general, we all prefer to live close to people with whom we share a similar identity. Researchers call it self-segregation and it covers the notion that we simply gravitate towards the same places. Diverse housing typologies including more affordable and accessible options are often used as the primary tool to battle segregation and foster diversity.

In a study carried out by Gehl in Copenhagen, we found that housing typologies do indeed have a strong impact on the overall diversity of a neighborhood. But surprise surprise, it turns out that people, in general, are more nuanced and diverse than their housing situation might give them credit for. If we want to capture our differences and unlock the potential of diversity and social mixing, we need to move our attention beyond (only) housing typologies and onto the places and public spaces we each frequent as part of our daily lives — the routes we take to work or school, the streets we shop and socialize on, the parks and training grounds where we practice sports, for example. This makes the spaces in between buildings the places where opportunities for social interaction are the greatest.

Public space doesn’t automatically serve diversity or inclusion

It’s kind of obvious, but let’s start by settling the fact that any space isn’t necessarily inviting for every activity and for all people at all times. There is no such thing as a universal one-size-fits-all type of public space.

To back this up, we’ve found that when marginalized groups are asked to map the way they use the city, we see very different patterns amongst respondents. Ethnic minorities appreciate other aspects of the city than physically disabled people who in turn appreciate other aspects than the LGBTQ+ community or houseless people. Similar findings can be found in various studies looking at different age groups and genders. Sometimes we conduct observations in areas where we know there’s a large population of elderly people, yet they are barely present in the public space. Or we count people staying in a park right next to a dense non-profit housing area with lots of families and yet no young people are playing or hanging out.

If public space is the best opportunity we have to stimulate social interaction across demographics, identity and preference, then public space needs to be designed for those we wish to include.

Whether elderly or young people or anybody else, if they are not there, something is wrong with the way the place works. Here, the planner’s task is to truly understand the needs of those, for whom the space should feel inviting. And yes, this is time-consuming, complex, difficult, and messy. Luckily it’s also fun!

To make the complexity even greater, what we’re arguing here at Gehl is for more attention to what individual places do (who it serves, what value it brings them) by understanding the network of public space as a crucial component of the social infrastructure in an inclusive city.

The need for social infrastructure

At Gehl, we’ve learned to understand social infrastructure as a network of places which we’ve termed havens, hubs and hangouts.

Havens are where you meet like minded people around a shared identity and where strong social bonds prevail. Often havens are community driven, bottom-up and rely on passionate volunteers.

Hubs are where you’re invited to engage and interact based on an intention to meet and mix across differences. Often these are public institutions such as libraries, community houses and sports facilities and they can be home to a variety of activities.

Hangouts are where you can simply co-exist with both friends and strangers. Often these are parks, plazas or playgrounds. Apart from being valuable recreational areas, these places connect the network of hubs and havens in and around different neighborhoods.

This thinking also allows us to understand the role of community resources and the local authority and how these can work together to serve cultural representation, interests and needs, habits, and routines etc.

The role of authorities in social infrastructure investment

Coming back to the previous point, local authorities should pay special attention to the diversity of public space and its capacity to foster social cohesion throughout all communities within the city. This is always important, and especially when investments are being made in transforming existing areas or developing new ones.

New developments happen in a mix of private investments, national and local regulation, public institutions, housing associations etc. and this mix of interest is already complex. However, specifications for community facilities in new developments should be shaped in relation to the notes in the existing network and through active participation of local residents.

I cannot think of anyone other than the local authorities to be held accountable for assessing the network of social infrastructure, identifying strengths and weaknesses, convening partners and stakeholders and directing investments where it’s needed the most.

For me, the opportunity to think about what an ‘inclusive city’ is was much needed. I believe that the ambition to invest in the inclusive city is quite mainstream, but our understanding of how an inclusive city relies on high quality public space is not. I believe this to be a crucial arena for more attention, knowledge and investments, especially as it will only become more contentious in the future as national challenges play out in and between our neighborhoods and communities.

This article was originally published by Ida Bigum on LinkedIn under the title: ‘What is an inclusive city, who is it for and why do we need it?’

For all Danish speakers out there, you can listen here to Ida’s conversation, ‘Fordele og ulemper ved den blandede by –  hvem blander vi for?’ with Gustav Brade (former Henning Larsen Architects), Søren Kaare-Andersen, Bikubenfonden and Mette Prag, PLADS ApS.