Social Dynamics of an emerging Living Lab : sketch of a monography

1. Social Dynamics of an emerging Living Lab : sketch of a monography Cedric Routier – HaDePaS cedric.routier@icl-lille.fr

2. Humanicité : upperview (2012)

3. Today’s purpose • Through the successive visions of thisemerging LL, give a sketch of the wholeprocess • Because of the timing: focus is made on visions expressed and a (too) brief look at main topics and theirevolution

4. A set of data • Two mains sources • 3 years of personal, institutional and organizational records (2009-2011; 63 documents) from a project’s manager • Own subjective experience of the LL project

6. Successive steps : 2009 • Context : • « grand emprunt / Investissements d’Avenir » : french public fundingunderSarkozy’sgovernment • « éco-quartiers » : vision of citiessustainabledevelopment Individualscale Public spaces Density, diversity, citizenship • Aging : future demographical changes in french population and hence, health & caring system

7. Successive steps : 2009 • First vision : • PartnershipbetweenUniversity and a realtycompany : based on social needs and shared values • 2 Major trends : sustainabledevelopment and housing innovation

8. Successive steps : 2010 • Context : • Same public funding (mostnotbaly : point 5) • First mention of the Llab’s concept: applied to the whole area (« Humanicité ») • Trends : • « Intense » cities and sustainabledevelopment • And… Llab (urban, economical & social development) Disabilities, aging and citizenship of vulnerable people Pedagogic aspects

9. Successive steps : 2010 • 7 (!) visions/definitionsfound

10. Successive steps : 2010

11. Successive steps : 2010 • Main lines • A variable mention of stakeholdersamong visions • Visions of a more and more political/territorial and urbanistic nature • A concern : welcomedisabled peoples withoutlimiting a sharedway of living to them (avoid a « ghetto » stigma) • LLAb as a sustainable and urbandevelopmenttool • Soft emergence of the governancetopic… • ...withdifferent commissions identified (at least 4, withdifferentstakeholders)… • … with an evolutionfrom a democratic, then more managerial, and thenagain more co-elaborativeview of the area governance

12. Successive steps : 2010 • Main lines • Simultaneously, emergence of the « area / Llab » distinction • « The » Llab • An animation and developmenttool, distinct from the area • A name : « the Humanicité workshops » • A unifyingtheme : « accessibility » (conjunction of all trends + different acceptions) • A place…yet to bediscussed

13. Successive steps : 2011 • « Accessibility » topicstrenghtened… • …through a co-elaborativeseminar (extended set of stakeholders) • If « official » visions are expressed… (tools, governance, press) • …interestingconcernsremain : • Is thereonlyco-elaboration to a Llab ? • Animation and roles of stakeholders : stand-by ? • Name, web links, physicalspace : unclear • A conceptualized vision (privateagency) ruled out

14. Successive steps : 2011

15. Successive steps : 2011 • Hence : seriousconcernsadressed in the end: • Should a privatepartnerrule and manage the Llab ? • Should the « disability, aging and citizenship » topicbestrengthened ? • Or should one capitalise on results of the « accessibilityseminar » ? • Atthis stage : • Second option chosen as the context of LLab • Third option isre-asserted as its main topic (area animation ; well-being and quality of life => « values ») • A physicalspaceischosen (heart of the area)

16. Whatweretain • As an ANT approachmightguess : • any new set of actors, social trend and governance mode leads to a new definition/vision of the LL • In return, any new vision subsequentlycristallize a temporary network… • So : • local details vs. global process… • …or global vision embedded in any set of local details ?

17. A set of questions… for the future • Funding and governanceoftenremainedunclear / unresolved • Is there a generic/transferable model : • of emergence, • of building • of governance • and of business for living labs ?

18. Humanicité : upperview (2012)