General information
The overarching goal of the research project Reallabor Stadt:quartier 4.0 is to support the city administrations of the partner cities of Stuttgart and Herrenberg in the participatory development of sustainable urban spaces. As part of the research project, selected urban development projects in the partner cities were designated as ‘“testing grounds”', in which various digital tools and methods were tested and applied for different project phases in the informal planning process.
Target values
- Economical
- Ecological
- Social
Content focus
- Process design
Innovation type
- Technical
Funding
- Public, federal state
Research orientation
Research design
The increasing use of digital technology in business and society is one of the most significant changes of our time. The impact of the digital transformation on cities, as our main living spaces, is not well understood. The ever-shorter innovation cycles of digital products and processes conflict with the longevity and path dependency of cities and their infrastructure. In many cases, planning and decision-making processes are still carried out using very conventional and highly regulated procedures and tools, which, given the current challenges facing urban neighbourhoods, can hardly keep pace with the increasing speed of change in the economy and society. The Stadtquartier 4.0 research project aims to address and combine two fields of innovation:
- The digitalisation of planning and decision-making processes in increasingly complex situations, involving all relevant stakeholders.
- The digitalisation of urban space as a central place for living and working in an increasingly digital society.
The three-year research project ‘Reallabor Stadtquartier 4.0’ (Real-world Laboratory Urban District 4.0) is based on a strategy of co-designing research and acquiring knowledge together with citizens. Through a series of innovative real-world experiments and interventions, we aim to develop novel and forward-looking methods for urban district planning with early citizen participation and test them in ‘real-world laboratories’ in collaboration with the cities of Stuttgart and Herrenberg.
Research questions
- How can the connectivity of the results of informal planning processes (e.g. using visualisation tools and digital forms of participation) to formal planning processes be ensured?
- What role can citizens play with their local expert knowledge in thinking ahead and planning for the future?
- What tools and methods can help at the intersection of idea development and planning, of citizens and government?
Cooperation
Type of co-creation
Those collaborating in the project pursue the co-creation approach intensively in only one phase of the project. In addition, the co-creation approach is applied in cross-process phases by invlving people with practical and professional experience in decision-making about how to proceed.
Society involvement
Organized civil society and/or local society exchang ideas with the project managers. The decision-making power lies with the scientists.
Continuation of the project
- Anträge zum Aufbau auf die erarbeitenden Ergebnisse im Rahmen der IBA
Constellation of actors
Svientific involvements
- HLRS (High Performance Computing Centre Stuttgart)
- IAT (Institute for Industrial Engineering and Technology Management)
- SI (Institute for Urban Development – Chair of Urban Planning and Design)
- ZIRIUS (Centre for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies)
Actors in administration
- City of Stuttgart
- City of Herrenberg
Economic actors
- Kommunikationsbüro Ulmer GmbH
Organization and decision-making
Project management
The scientific partners met regularly to discuss the project and prepare meetings with the practical partners. In addition, there were central events as described in the project report, as well as bilateral consultations between individual scientific partners and practical partners. Depending on the real-world experiment, smaller groups were also formed with representatives from both groups.
Agreements and decisions
Discussions took place during the meetings and activities mentioned under ‘“Project management”.’ Decisions were always made jointly and by consensus. Overall, there was a constructive working atmosphere.
Result and effect
Results and impacts in terms of affordability and other ecological and social target values
Development of a planning system designed to help city administrations identify the actual needs of the parties involved and of the process itself at an early stage and in a comprehensive manner, thereby saving costs.
Experiences
Helpful insights & solutions
Findings
- Research design: as narrow as necessary, as open as possible. Even though science often provides the impetus in real-world laboratories, there should still be enough space for ideas from the practice partners. In this case, it worked well.
- Process design: as inclusive and participatory as possible, even if this may cost time and money.
- Actors involved and their role in the process: all actors should treat each other as equals and with the necessary respect, recognising each other's expertise. This worked very well in our real-world laboratory, which was one of the reasons for the successful development of the project results.
- Funding: real-world laboratories often deal with long-term issues (e.g. energy transition, climate change, citizen participation). Accordingly, appropriate funding in terms of duration and scope is recommended.
Solutions/success factors
In a real-world laboratory with a focus on practical research, it is particularly important for scientists to recognise other disciplines and be flexible. This went really well in our real-world laboratory, as there was a pleasant working atmosphere and mutual respect and trust. In this respect, it seems that the scientists involved having as open an attitude as possible is a key to success for a real-world laboratory.
Further information