ACTAGEOGRAPHICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK SLOVENICA 2019 59 1 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 59-1 • 2019 Contents Maja KOCJANČIČ, Tomislav POPIT, Timotej VERBOVŠEK Gravitational sliding of the carbonate megablocks in the Vipava Valley, SW Slovenia 7 Małgorzata KIJOWSKA-STRUGAŁA, Anna BUCAŁA-HRABIA Flood types in a mountain catchment: the Ochotnica River, Poland 23 Irena MOCANU, Bianca MITRICĂ, Mihaela PERSU Socio-economicimpactofphotovoltaicpark:TheGiurgiucountyruralarea,Romania 37 Andrej GOSAR The size of the area affected by earthquake induced rockfalls: Comparison of the1998 Krn Mountains (NW Slovenia) earthquake (Mw 5.6) with worldwide data 51 Matej GABROVEC, Peter KUMER Land-use changes in Slovenia from the Franciscean Cadaster until today 63 Mojca FOŠKI Using the parcel shape index to determine arable land division types 83 Mateja FERK, Matej LIPAR, Andrej ŠMUC, Russell N. DRySDALE, Jian ZHAO Chronology of heterogeneous deposits in the side entrance of Postojna Cave, Slovenia 103 Special issue – Green creative environments Jani KOZINA, Saša POLJAK ISTENIČ, Blaž KOMAC Green creative environments: Contribution to sustainable urban and regional development 119 Saša POLJAK ISTENIČ Participatory urbanism: creative interventions for sustainable development 127 Jani KOZINA, Nick CLIFTON City-region or urban-rural framework: what matters more in understandingthe residential location of the creative class? 141 Matjaž URŠIČ, Kazushi TAMANO The importance of green amenities for small creative actors in Tokyo: Comparing natural and sociocultural spatial attraction characteristics 159 ISSN 1581-6613 9 771581 661010 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA 2019 ISSN: 1581-6613 COBISS: 124775936 UDC/UDK: 91© 2019, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika Internationaleditorialboard/mednarodniuredniškiodbor: DavidBole(Slovenia),MichaelBründl(Switzerland),RokCiglič(Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), BlažKomac (Slovenia), Andrej Kranjc (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCharty (United Kingdom), SlobodanMarković (Serbia), Janez Nared (Slovenia), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Nika Razpotnik Visković(Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Annett Steinführer (Germany), Mimi Urbanc (Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia) Editor-in-Chief/glavni urednik: Blaž Komac; blaz@zrc-sazu.si Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko; drago@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for physical geography/glavni urednik za fizično geografijo: Matija Zorn; matija.zorn@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for human geography/glavna urednica za humano geografijo: Mimi Urbanc; mimi@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for regional geography/glavni urednik za regionalno geografijo: Drago Kladnik; drago.kladnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for spatial planning/glavni urednik za regionalno planiranje: Janez Nared; janez.nared@zrc-sazu.si Chiefeditorforruralgeography/glavnaurednicazageografijopodeželja:NikaRazpotnikVisković;nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for urban geography/glavni urednik za urbano geografijo: David Bole; david.bole@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for geographic information systems/glavni urednik za geografske informacijske sisteme: Rok Ciglič; rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for environmental protection/glavni urednik za varstvo okolja: Aleš Smrekar; ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si Editorial assistant/uredniški pomočnik: Matjaž Geršič; matjaz.gersic@zrc-sazu.si Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZUPublished by/založnik: Založba ZRC Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Address/Naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija The papers are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314) Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si Annual subscription/letna naročnina: 20 € for individuals/za posameznike, 28 € for institutions/za ustanove. Single issue/cena posamezne številke: 12,50 € for individuals/za posameznike, 16 € for institutions/za ustanove. Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o. DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o. Printed by/tiskarna: Tiskarna Present, d. o. o. Print run/naklada: 350 copies/izvodov The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research Agency and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia coreresearchprogramme(P6-0101)/revijaizhajaspodporoJavneagencijezaraziskovalnodejavnostRepublikeSlovenijein nastajav okviru raziskovalnega programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101). The journal is indexed also in/revija je vključena tudi v: SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, JCR – Journal Citation Report/Science Edition, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost,Geoscience e-Journals, Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google scholar,and CrossRef. Oblikovanje/Design by: Matjaž Vipotnik. Front cover photography: Stone bridge over the Rak River on the outskirts of the Rakov Škocjan polje, which is otherwiseknown for its beautiful natural bridges (photograph: Matej Lipar).Fotografija na naslovnici: Kamniti most čez reko Rak na obrobju kraškega polja Rakov Škocjan, ki je sicer bolj znano počudovitih naravnih mostovih (fotografija: Matej Lipar). PARTICIPATORYURBANISM: CREATIVEINTERVENTIONSFOR SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT Saša Poljak Istenič Participatory urbanism builds communities, contributes to sustainable development and boosts a creative city image. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.5142 UDC: 911.375:502.131.1(497.4Ljubljana) COBISS: 1.01 Participatory urbanism: creative interventions for sustainable development ABSTRACT: The paper presents the concept of participatory urbanism and analyses its practical impli­cationsinthecontextoftheCityofLjubljana. Itassessesthepotentialofparticipatorymethodologyforphysical and social interventions in public spaces through the case-studies of two creative spatial practices: urban communitygarden Onkrajgradbišča/Beyondtheconstructionsiteandcommunity-ledrenovationof Savsko naselje neighbourhood.Itindicateshowbottom-up initiativescan contributetosustainabledevelopment of an urban area, especially to its environmental and social features. It concludes with the ideas of how cities might engage with bottom-up spatial practices to increase the effectiveness of urban spatial plan­ning, management and administration, and to boost their green creative image. KEY WORDS: participatory urbanism, grassroots creativity, spatial policy, creative city, European Green Capital, Ljubljana, Slovenia Participativni urbanizem: ustvarjalni posegi za trajnostni razvoj POVZETEK:Prispevekpredstavikonceptparticipativnegaurbanizmainanaliziranjegovepraktičneučinke v Mestni občini Ljubljana. Na primeru dveh ustvarjalnih prostorskih praks, urbanega skupnostnega vrta Onkraj gradbišča in skupnostne prenove Savskega naselja, avtorica vrednoti potencial participativne metodologijezafizičneindružbeneposegevjavniprostor.Nakaže,kakolahkoiniciativeodspodajnavzgor prispevajokvzdržnemurazvojuurbanegaokolja,šeposebejvokoljskemindružbenemsmislu.Prispevek se sklene z idejami, kako lahko mesta upoštevajo prostorske prakse svojih prebivalcev, da bi povečala učinkovitost urbanega prostorskega načrtovanja, vodenja in upravljanja ter okrepila svojo zeleno ustvarjalno podobo. KLJUČNE BESEDE: participativni urbanizem, samonikla ustvarjalnost, prostorska politika, ustvarjalno mesto, Zelena prestolnica Evrope, Ljubljana, Slovenija Saša Poljak Istenič Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute of Slovenian Ethnology sasa.poljak@zrc-sazu.si The article was submitted for publication on May 21st, 2017. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 21. maja 2017. 1 Introduction Greencities have become a norm,but alsoa trend. However, beinggreen doesnotonlydenoteproviding green areas suchasparks andgardens,planting trees,arranginggreenroofsand some otheractions directly linked to nature. Green cities are also pursuing sustainable development bearing in mind not only envi­ronmental, but social, cultural and economic features as well (Nurse 2006). They can choose to brand themselves as a green destination or a green city (Poljak Istenič 2016), which positively affects their rep­utation and income from tourism, investments and other venues, as is proved by Ljubljana when gaining the European Green Capital award and being included among the top hundred sustainable destinations. And finally yet importantly, being green could as well mean having efficient urban management which strives to develop ecosystem services, include all citizens in decision-making and share responsibility for functioning of urban areas. Academicsandpractitionersincreasinglyadvocateparticipatoryandinclusivepracticesinlocalplan­ning,managementanddecision-making(BondandThompson-Fawcett2007).Citiesaswellarebecoming keenertoembraceurbaninterventions»frombelow«,notonlybecausetheystrugglewithcomplexman­agementandadministration,excessivebureaucracyandthelackoffundsforinvestingintoandmanaging urbaninfrastructure,butalsobecausesuchinterventions,joinedunderthetermparticipatory,do-it-your­self(DIY),tacticaloranyotherurbanism(seebelow),havebecome»abrandinitself«and»thelatestpolitical vernacular of the Creative City« (Mould 2014, 529). Although many such practices are initiated by local activists,anarchistgroupsorsomeinternetcommunities,onecanindeedlinkmostofthemtothedesires and struggles of the »creative class« (Florida 2002) to make a city and urban living more »tailored to the individual needs of its citizens« (Ljubljana European…2016, 51). In Slovenia, these new forms of collec­tive urban engagement range from (collaborative) community practices, co-working, community-led renovations, temporary use of space and urban gardening to local economies, housing communities and co-mobility(Internet1) –commonlyinvariouscombinations. Despitecomingintopubliclimelightonly recently, media, policymakers and public administration increasingly recognize their potential and appropriate them for their own agendas. The aim of the article is to introduce the concept of participatory urbanism, to present local people’s visions and interpretations of top-down (authoritarian) as well as bottom-up (participatory) urbanism, and analyse practical implications of the latter in the context of the City of Ljubljana. Ljubljana is the ca-pitalcityoftheRepublicofSlovenia,situatedonacrossroadsofCentralEurope,theMediterranean,Balkan PeninsulaandthePannonianPlain(CigličandPerko2013).Itisthepolitical,administrative,culturaland Figure1:Amapwithmarkedlocationsofanalysedpracticesof participatoryurbanism, Onkrajgradbišča/Beyondtheconstructionsite communitygarden and Savsko naselje neighbourhood. economiccentreofthecountrywhileitalsohostsmanyinternationalinstitutionsandorganizations.Giving the name to the Ljubljana urban region, by far the most developed region in the country, it mainly relies on its service sector. It covers 275squarekilometres and has a populationof 288.919(SURS 2017). In my ethnographic argumentation, I will focus on two case studies of creative (i.e. artistic or cultural) spatial practices on the brinks of the Ljubljana’s core city centre, on the south and north-east of the central train station. Both were initiated by NGOs, which have successfully implemented participatory methodology when intervening in public spaces and have been acknowledged by the city. ThefirstcaseisacommunitygardeningprojectinTabor,aformerindustrialandworking-classneigh­bourhood in the inner-city district of Ljubljana, located between the town hall, the main railway and bus station and the University Medical Centre Ljubljana. The neighbourhood comprises different residential andotherbuildingsasaheritageofthepast(e.g.oldpowerplant,railwaystation,formermilitarybarracks) andplacesofpresentactivities(i.e. aretirementhome,studentshallofresidence,church,schools,offices, shops, museums, cinemas, mixed-use housing, etc.). Until 2009, it was under pressure of property mar­ketdevelopmentandexperiencedalossofresidentialandsociallifeaswellasadegradationofpublicspaces, especially a lack of green areas and non-commercial public spaces (Pichler-Milanović 2012). Due to its residency in the former construction pit, the analysed garden, named Onkraj gradbišča/Beyond the con­structionsite,materializedintheframeworkoftheculturalfestivalMladilevi/YoungLionsinsummer2010 and was initially financed from the Interreg project Sostenuto (Internet 2), dedicated to the revitalization of the Tabor neighbourhood. In the seven years of operating, the community has changed several times from the initial one, but regularly around one hundred persons take care of forty plots of land in the gar-denandparticipateinnumerouspublicandcommunity-basedeventsthattakeplacethereorinotherpublic spaces of the local community. The initiator and supervisor of the garden is cultural association Obrat, andthecitysupportsthepracticebygivingtheannualpermissionforthetemporaryuseoflandandocca­sionally financing minor interventions (when the association successfully applies for funds). ThesecondexampleofparticipatoryurbanismIanalyseisacommunity-ledrenovationinSavskonasel­je,Ljubljana’soldestpost-second-world-warneighbourhoodlyingontheoppositesideofLjubljana’scentral railway stationthan Tabor neighbourhood,awayfromthe centre towardsthe north. Thefirst apartments were built in 1946–1947 and the housing stock had been increasing until the 1970s when they built sev­eralskyscrapers.Consequently,theneighbourhoodexperiencedasuddeninfluxofsociallyandethnically diversepopulationsandsoonbecamenotorious foragangofyoungsters,whichfoughtwithgroupsfrom otherneighbourhoods(Mehle2017).Thedelinquentslaterbecameassociatedwithdrugusers,and,atleast according to the conversations with more recent inhabitants, the settlement became one of the most dis­reputable in Ljubljana, especially so due to relatively old and deteriorating housing stock. A decade ago, people seeking accommodation were therefore advised not to move there, let alone buy a flat (see, e.g., Internet3),andtheneighbouringschoolwas,inthewordsofoneoftheparents, »onthebrinksofclosure« (Interviewee 1) due to decrease of younger population and children switching schools due to the neigh­bourhood’s low reputation. The first push-up for a change came from a famous musician who has lived there from his birth. In 2010, when releasing a rap album dedicated to the neighbourhood, he organized a promotional event in the local schoolyard (Cerar 2010). Later this so-called Blok-party developed into themainannualneighbourhoodgathering.Accordingtomyinterviewees,thiswasthestartoftherevival ofsociallifeinthecommunity,andinafewyears,severalculturalandsocialassociationsandinterestgroups started positively interfering with local life, what had not gone unnoticed by the City. Since the neigh-bourhood–currentlycountingaround8.000people–isonaprimelocation,thecitydecidedtofundaminor project of community-led urban renewal in 2013 and engaged cultural association Prostorož to coordi­natetheactivities.Theassociation–previouslyalsoactiveintheTaborneighbourhood–neededtocombine funds from different sources to make more profound changes in the neighbourhood, and today the area canboostwithrenovatedplaygrounds,tidygreenspaces,managedcommunityplaceandimprovedminor infrastructure. Throughdescribedcasestudies, I willtestthe hypothesis thatparticipatory urbanism fruitfullycom-plementstop-downspatialinterventions,especiallyincontributingtothepillarsofsustainabledevelopment that are often overlooked by urban planners, i.e. its social and cultural dimension. In conclusion, I will also provide some ideas on how cities might engage with such practices to increase the effectiveness of their spatial planning, management and administration as well as boost its image of a green creative city. 2 Methods The article is derived from a research on creativity as an interactive social process that reflects the liveli­hood strategiesof variousindividualsand communitiesmostlyactiveinthefield of(urban) culture,who challenge theprevailing notions of importanceoffinancialin favourofhuman(social,cultural,symbolic) capital.Inthisway,itcomplementsrecentresearchoncreativityinSlovenia,whichunderstandsitinmore economicterms(Bole2008;Kozina2016;Uršič2016;KozinaandBole2017a,2017b;Kozina2018;forcrit­ical qualitative assessment of creativity’s economic dimension see Bajič 2015, 2017; Poljak Istenič 2015, 2016, 2017,2018; Uršič 2017; Vodopivec 2017). During mytwo anda halfyear longfieldwork,I followed cultural initiatives in Ljubljana that significantly contribute to the perceived »creativity« of the city, but havenotbeenalwaysrecognizedascreative(atleastnotinthesenseofthecreativeeconomy). Thispaper interprets their practices in the theoretical framework of participatory urbanism, focusing on described case studies. To be able to grasp the phenomena of participatory urbanism in practice, I used qualitative methods of research. I engaged in a participant observation of community gardening and took an informal tour around Savsko naselje, guided by one of its inhabitants. I carried out conversations with passers-by, local inhabitants,participantsaswellasinitiatorsofbothpresentedcasesofparticipatoryurbanism.Additionally, I conducted thorough narrative interviews with two representatives of the mentioned initiatives. Finally, I contextualisedthe data with informationgainedthroughpreviously doneinterviewswith peopleactive inLjubljana’spublicplacesandwithemployeesofthelocalandstateadministrations.Irecordedthemajor­ity of interviews (29 altogether) and transcribed most of them as well as wrote down the key comments fromcoincidental talks. Thearticleis basedonmyinterlocutors’ visions andinterpretationsoftop-down as well as bottom-up urbanism, and presents the views gained through conversations. However, as I was notobservingdescribedactionsconsistentlyanddidnotaimtogatherarepresentativesampleofinformants foranalysis,thearticleonlyhasamodestambitiontodisclosethemultiplicityofviewsonparticipatoryurban-ismandtooffersuchinsightsintopracticesinLjubljanathatareoftenoverlookedbymorerepresentative, quantitatively oriented studies. 3 Participatory urbanism In 2015, 54% of the world’s population lived in urban areas, and urban population is continuing to grow withunfathomablespeed(Internet4).Thismakescitieshardtomanageandgovern,andoneofthegreat­estchallengesthaturbanadministrationsfacetodayismotivatingpeopletoparticipateintheirgovernance– i.e. in urban planning, design and management – and in this way share responsibility for the quality of urban living (Silver, Scott and Kazepov 2010). On the other hand, some cities avoid participation, either due to the conflicting interests of the communities and city administration, or because the experiments withparticipatoryplanninghave»turnedouttobeanopportunityforloudanddissatisfiedcitizenstocom­municatewiththemunicipalrepresentativesface-to-face[where]thedebatesquicklyescalatedintonon-topic related mess« (Kozina et al. 2017, 73). Ifthelate1990sandearly2000shavebeencharacterizedbythe»creativeturn«(see,e.g.,Landry2000; Florida 2002) and the cities that had used culture have been »celebrated and looked to as successful propo­nents not only of culture-led regeneration, but also of urban regeneration generally« (Evans 2002, 213; for Ljubljana see Žaucer et al. 2012), then the last decade was identified with the »participatory turn« – first withinthefinearts,thenalsoinurbanplanning,urbandesignandarchitecture(KrivýandKaminer2013). Informal,grassrootsinitiativesinpublicspaces,culturalaswellasphysical–embodyingwhatKurtIveson (2013) calls »micro-spatial urban practices« – have been labelled with numerous and diverse (not always orcompletelysynonymous)terms,suchasguerrilla,hacktivism,acupuncture,subversive,minor,wiki,open­source,insurgent,pop-up,DIY,hands-on,tactical,bottom-up,grassroots,participatory(andprobablysome else) urbanism, even the New Urbanism (when referring to the movement in the USA) (Courage 2013; Wortham-Galvin 2013; Finn 2014a). Although Emily Talen (2012) traces such movements (particularly DIY urbanism) to the mid-to-late 1800s (when municipal arts and civic improvement actions had swept theUSA),directhistoricalconnectionisusuallymadetouser-centricvisionsforarchitecturein1960s,in which the ideal was empowering the user to act in space by means of physical engagement without the mediationofthearchitect(Chernyakovaetal.2012).Thefirstmorethoroughethnographicaswellasthe­oretical accounts on participation also originate in this decade (e.g. Gans 1962; Arnstein 1969; Reynolds 1969).InSlovenia,however,participationasaconceptwasdefinedinthe1970s(Mlinar1973).Themajor­ity of authors conceptually exploring participation differentiate between formal (structural, legally defined)andinformal(grassroots)participationand/orvertical(linkbetweeninstitutionsandparticipants) andhorizontalparticipation(relationshipamongcommunities,individualsandgroups),whereasladder-based approaches define it as an evolution from manipulation to citizen control (for more on this topic see Cerar 2015). Membershipofex-socialistcountriesintheEuropeanUnionhasopenedupnewperspectivesfortheir urbanpoliciesthatdemandcitizenparticipationininitiativesfortheimprovementofurbanissues(Keresztély andScott2012).Participatoryplanning–atleastinWesternEurope–hasbeenlongintegratedintoplan­ningpolicies»indilutedforms«(KrivýandKaminer2013,1),suchaspublicconsultationsandsimilarpractices of public cooperation; it is increasingly so also in Slovenia (see Mežnarič, Rep and Mizori Zupan 2008). However, these practices tend to be more individual-centred, while participatory urbanism relies on the ideaofcommunity –be itthatit can generateasenseofcommunitythroughspecificdesignprinciples or throughresidents’involvementinthewholedevelopmentprocess. Urbanismbecomesparticipatoryonly when it is understood as flexible, temporal, in a state of evolution and equated with the community on individual as well as collective level (Chernyakova et al. 2012). It tends to be grassroots and bottom-up, most of the time with anti-authoritarian characteristics and aiming to enhance urban living experience throughincrementalstrategiesofurbanfabricimprovement(Courage2013).Broadlydefined,itcanbeany action taken by citizens that impacts urban space, by the rule without government involvement or even in oppositiontogovernmentpoliciesandregulations(Finn2014b).Itcanbealsounderstoodas»aspecificmode ofinformalspaceproduction«(Jabareen2014,414)or»tacticsinwhichgroupsofcitizensandarchitects/design­ers/activistsappropriateandtransformprivateorpublicspaceintotemporaryurbancommons«(Bradley2015, 91). In this sense, the initiatives are often seen as the »right to the city« movements (Lefebvre 1996), as resistance practices against neoliberal interventions into a city (Poljak Istenič 2018). However, »[i]n many cases [the phrase] seems to mean just the right to a more ’human‘ life in the con-textofthecapitalistcityandonthebasisofa(’reformed‘)representative ’democracy‘«(deSouza2010,315). ThesameappliestoLjubljana’sinitiatives,whichstriveto »takebackpublicspacesweforgotabout« (Inter­viewee 2), as expressed by one of the initiatives’ spokesperson. They usually act in the belief that change is possible and offer (or try todevelop)alternativesfor the use of space or urban living in general. Giving a social commentary to urban neoliberal policies in an artistic (or cultural) form, they »propose alter­nativelifestyles,reinventourdailylives,andreoccupyurbanspacewithnewuses«(Zardini2008,16).Gathering people together to work for a common cause, such initiatives often refer to the nostalgic feelings of com-munity,authenticexperienceandgoing»backtobasics«(Forkert2016,11).AspointedoutbyBorisBuden (inKrivýandKaminer2013),aconcernfor»community«and»culture«hasreplaced»society«asthehori­zonofcontemporarypolitics.However,establishingalinkbetweenphysicaldesignofcitiesandsocialgoals like»senseofcommunity«,»socialequity«and»commongood«provedtobedifficult,andattachingnor­mative town planning to these social goals very problematic (Talen 2002). Participatory urbanism, with its focus on common good, informality and temporality, thus often fills this gap, inefficiently (or unsuc­cessfully) addressed by the »top-down« urban administration – and in this way contributes to the »least popularpillars«ofsustainabledevelopment,socialand(wheninvolvingartistsandculturalproducersand/or implying a specific identity formation) also cultural. The spread of such practices is especially noticeable after the 2008 crisis, which caused diminishing of many mechanisms for funding and managing urban infrastructure and public spaces. As pointed out by KarinBradley (2015; see also Forkert 2016), urban interventions»from below« in a way actually legit-imizepublicwithdrawal,whichistheoppositeofwhatthesespatialpracticestrytoachieve. Asareaction to under-efficient public spatial management – its rigid formality, unsuccessful regulation of private and individualinterests,non-transparentfunding–theystrivetodevelopalternativeproduction,management andeconomicmodelswhichwould(andalreadyare)successfullysolve(-ing)someofthelesspleasantmat­tersoflivinginacity. Thesemodelsshowthat»changesin spacefor thebetter are possible and within reach, whichoftenestrangedandlong-lastingprocessesofspatialplanningdonotenable«(Skupnostneprakse2014)– i.e.thatitispossibletomakeapositivechangeonlywithminorinterventionsandlowfunds,especiallywhen relyingon(whichever)communityparticipationinallphases:planning,implementationandmanagement. On the other hand, such practices have also been increasingly embraced by the cities and appropri­ated for city branding or other promotional strategies (Poljak Istenič 2016), as is the case of Onkraj gradbišča/Beyond the construction site garden. As a role model of community urban garden, it has been promoted on some of the city’s websites, and although it could be argued that the city has promotionally supportedthegarden,onecannotdenythishas(also)benefitedthecity,asLjubljanaheavilypromotesits greenandcreativeorientation(andwasspecificallyadvertisingitsEuropeanGreenCapitalawardin2016). In the last three years, the phenomenon of »bottom-up« initiatives transformed from marginal spa­tial practices into more and more obvious »mainstream« mode of spatial action, in Slovenia and globally (Peterlin 2015). However, as a »mainstream« practice (increasingly – although unsystematically – fund­edbylocalauthorities,astheyrecognizethemasimprovingthequalityofurbanlifeandthecity’simage), theinitiativeslackdecisiveoppositionalorexplicitlypoliticalaspects.Thustheyhavenotbeenabletoachieve any profound change in spatial policy, »proposed« to the cities in the form of alternative models or/and modes of spatial interventions, as I will show below. 4 Ljubljana – a green creative city In the last decade, Ljubljana’s promotion mainly revolves around two global brands: »the city of culture« or »the creative city« and »green« or »sustainable« city (cf. Internet 5). It was recently listed among the Global Top 100 Sustainable Destinations 2014, 2016 and 2017 (Internet 6) and won the European Green Capital2016awardin2014(Internet7)aswellastheUNESCOCityofLiteraturetitlein2015,whichgrant-ed thecity aninclusion intothe CreativeCities Network (Internet8). Inits promotional anddevelopment strategies, culture (also as an element of a creative economy) is seen as an integral part of environmental design(Trajnostna…2015).Ljubljanathusoftensupports(atleastonpaper)grassrootscreativity–espe­cially such that addresses as wide participation of diverse inhabitants as possible and leaves visible traces in space – to show the diversity of its urban culture. In this way, however, it also tries to fill in the gaps in cultural production,causedbyausterity measures aswellastheshrinkingofculturalandspatialbudgets. Additionally, it occasionally promotes it to gain a competitive advantage in the interurban rivalry or to appealtotheEuropeanUnion’sdemandsandtrends(PoljakIstenič2016;2018).Althoughtherearenumer­ous green creative initiatives in Ljubljana, I will point out two examples of distinctively spatial practices that have been acknowledged and – financially, morally and/or promotionally – supported by the city. 4.1 Community garden Onkraj gradbišča/Beyond the construction site Oneofthemostsuccessful–provedbyitslongrun–participatoryspatialpracticeinLjubljanaisthecom­munity garden Onkraj gradbišča/Beyond the construction site. Invited to the project for revitalization of the neighbourhood, the cultural and artistic association Obrat decided to experiment with gardening as atemporaryuseofspaceaswellasoneofthe»alternativemodesofaction«(Interviewee3).Itsmainmotives were to make a compound and degraded place accessible to people and to redesign it into a community place, »i.e. place which would be planned, redesigned and managed by included individuals. We wanted to showwhatkindofchargeandpotentialcancommunityactionsinspacehave,andsimultaneouslytestwhere the practice of tactical urbanism, which can respond quicker to actual spatial and social needs than regular long-termplanning,willtakeus«(Lovšinetal. 2015,2).Theysucceededtogetanofficialpermissionfrom the city for a temporary use of land, and rearranged an abandoned construction site into a community urban garden, which is still thriving. During the years of operating, the garden has become the site for establishing informal contacts and exchanging information, services and goods. In this way, it »formed« acommunity,whichtheinitiatorsunderstoodasaprerequisiteforapositivesocialchange:»Let’slookcon­cretelyatwhatthat[garden]hasbroughtabout,whathappened,diditreallyinfluencecommunitycohesion, did it influence the safety of the neighbourhood, are the people more connected,« argued one of the associ­ation’s founders (Interviewee 3). »It did a little, but I don’t know if it had a great impact.« Althoughassociation Obrat hasbeentakingcareofthelegalissues(i.e. annualrenewalofpermission forthetemporaryuseofland),itmanagedtotransferthemanagementofthegardeningactivitiestoaself­organizedcoordinationcommitteein2015,as»thisissustainable.Tomakeaprojectsustainablemeansthat youprovidepeoplewhowillcontinuethis[activity]«(Interviewee3).Inthisway,theyco-createdacommunity capableof self-organizing and collaboratingdespitedifferent social,ethnic and educational backgrounds ofits members;associationonlymediates in solving regularissues and coordinatescommunity meetings ifneeded.Thegardenthusoperatesasaspaceforsensibilizationtodifferencesaswellasforpracticingactive co-designingandsharingurbanspace.Assuch,ithasbeenapopularlocationforvariousartisticandenvi­ronmentalprojects,initiatives,events,formassmediacoverageaswellasforthelocalcommunity.TheCity of Ljubljana also promotes it on its website dedicated to the European Green Capital 2016 program. NGOsareoftenthekeylinkbetweenthecityandurbancommunities(Cernea1988,cf.Abbott1996), and the same applies to Ljubljana’s cases. With a desire to gain public support, encourage people’s partici­pation and diversify socializing possibilities, the garden community – under the association’s guidance – establishedvariouscommunicationchannelswiththeneighbourhoodandcityauthoritiesaswell. Besides updating a fanzine, notice board and website, they also organize public events and workshops to revive local public life. There is more interest to join a community than available plots of land, so the associa­tion maintains a waiting list of all who would like to participate. By proving that an increasing number ofpeoplewanttohaveamoreactiveroleintheco-creationofthecity,thegardenthereforeservesasaprac­ticalcritiqueofthecity’srigid,unifyingpolicyoforganizingandleasingsmallgardenplots.Itdrawsattention totheshortcomingsofprevailingurbanmanagementofalreadyscarcepublicspaces,whicharealsoinsuf­ficientlysupportedbythepropermechanisms.Bygaininglocal,academicandmediasupport,thegarden initiativehasstrivedtoconvincethecitytoensuremoreplacesinitsareathatarenotearmarkedforcon­sumption and capital. But despite their efforts, the project still »did not bring about what we wished for. First,thecitydidnotloosentherulesfortemporaryuseofplacesinsuchawaythatpeoplewouldhaveaccess to the land that is on hold. It is sick that we only have this project. I see this as bad, not as good. In fact, such projects should have developed all around Ljubljana,« advocates the association’s representative (Interviewee 3). The so-called Network for Space, a network of various NGOs under the umbrella of the InstituteforSpatialPolicies(non-governmental,consultingandresearchorganizationinthefieldofsus­tainablespatialandurbandevelopment),nowcontinuesassociation’seffortstoloosentherulesfortemporary use of land. Figure2:Gardeningindegradedareas,suchasinOnkrajgradbišča/Beyond theconstructionsitegarden,offersanopportunitytogrowone’sownfood, be in touch with nature and socialize. 4.2 Community-led renovation of Savsko naselje Whenin2013thecitydecidedtofundthefirstprojectofcommunity-ledurbanrenewalinitsarea,itengaged cultural association Prostorož, which already had a decadeofexperience withrevival and renewal ofpublic spaceinLjubljana,includingtheTaborneighbourhoodwherepresentedcommunitygardenoperates.The areachosenforatestbottom-uprenewalwasSavskonaseljeneighbourhood,theoldestpost-second-world­warsettlementwithabadreputationandonaprimelocationwithinthecity.Theassociationinvitedthree othernon-profitorganizations,activeintheneighbourhood,tocooperateina»renovationoftheurbanneigh­bourhoodwhichconsidersthecommunityasmuchasspace«(Internet9).Undertheslogan»Whohelps,(that) wins!«, they employed different participatory techniques to outline integral urban renovation program. Associationsmanagedtogaintheinitialattentionofinhabitantswithpicnicsbetweenbuildings.They askeda localmusician torap onthe lawnunder balconies, made pancakesand invited peopleto comeby shoutingthroughmegaphones.Atsuchinformalgatherings,theychattedwithparticipantsover3-Dmod­elsoftheneighbourhoodandwrotedowntheiraspirationsforchanges.Theyalsosporadicallyinterviewed coincidentalinhabitantsaboutthemostburninglocalissues,whichcrystallizedtobetrafficarrangement, greenplaces,streetfurnitureandthelackofevents.Theyorganizedtheso-calledAssemblyforSavskonasel­je and established a working group for each issue to discuss what to do, and then used local newsletters and local renewal office as well as announcement boards, social media and e-mails to further communi­catewithinhabitantsabouttheprogressionoftheirproposedinterventionsandupcomingactionsorevents. Until2016,whentheprojectfinished–besidestheCityofLjubljanathefundsalsocamefromtheCreative EuropeprojectArtizen–theymanagedtoproposeatrafficstrategy,renovatedalocalsportsfieldandachil­dren’s playground, cleaned overgrown local hill and planted fruit trees. A local inhabitant, who took me on a tour through the neighbourhood when asked to explain recent changesand hisview ofa place,pointed out marked paths toschool, renovatedschool playgrounds, chil­dren’s playground and sports field, fruit trees and cleaned hill, renovated city library and the Knjižnica reči/Libraryofthings.Thelatterisaplaceestablishedtoencourageethicalsharingeconomy,asitsmembers Figure 3: The renovated children’s playground and freshly planted fruit trees, as seen from the cleaned local hill. (and non-members for a symbolic fee) can borrow useful items, namely those that one uses only a few timesayearbecausetheyaretooexpensivetobuyortoobigtostore.Mytourguidealsopointedoutrecent­lyrenovatedbuildingsandstressedthatbottom-upinterventionsinspaceinhisopinionalsoencouraged theresidentsofcertainapartmentbuildingstofinallystartrenovatingtheirimmediatedwellingsurroundings, e.g. facades, entrances, common inner spaces, courtyards, or auxiliary facilities. Some residents now also organizeregularpicnicsinfrontoftheirbuildingtosocializewiththeirneighboursandmeetmoreoften. Young families started moving back into the neighbourhood and the school currently has enough pupils as well as a good reputation. Whenaskedhowthecityreactedtotheirsuggestionsandactualspatialinterventions,oneofthepro­ject coordinators admitted the importance of initial financial support, but regretted that their proposals wereinsufficientlyconsideredandtheimplementationofproposedinterventionslacking:»Wepointedout too many things, we reported frankly to the city about everything the inhabitants wished, however, their ini­tiatives fell into domains of more departments, not just the urbanistic one [so the implementation should have been planned, financed and executed by several municipal offices, e.g. spatial, environmental, traf­fic, cultural]. The urbanistic department didn’t anticipate that we’ll make a whole traffic strategy but only expected us to hang some nice street lights. That is why our cooperation then finished. We found it unfair to hang some lights around Savsko naselje if the problems are a thousand cars too many, empty spaces, many unemployed people, unmown grass, unremoved snow, unknown land ownership – why would we hang the lights then? […] We categorized the problems and people’sinitiativesaccording to some criteria, and defined whichofthemareprioritizedbytheinhabitantsandwhichcouldalreadybeimplementedbythemalone.And wehandedthatovertothecityasafinalreport. Wedidalotmoreworkthanordered,buttherewasnowill­ingnesstograbthatandworkfurther«(Interviewee4).Localinhabitantsalsoadmitthatanenormouswork hasbeendoneandthattheneighbourhoodisnowmuchmorepleasanttoliveinthanbefore,butalsofear that without further support by the city, and especially without a formal coordinator, nothing more will happenandinfrastructurewillbeagainlefttodecay. Ontheotherhand,theyalsocomplainedoversome »unsatisfied«individualswhoopposedthechanges,claimingthattheyinawaydrovetheinitiatorsaway,as »thatkillsyou;inwhosehonouronewoulddoitifthelocalcommunitywhacksyouonthehead?«(Interviewee1). 5 Conclusion: Implications for cities The aim ofthe article was topresentinitiators’ and localpeople’svisions and interpretationsof top-down (authoritarian)andbottom-up(participatory)urbanismaswellastoanalysepracticalimplicationsofthe latter in the City of Ljubljana. Spontaneous, informal, bottom-up interventions into urban space – termed participatory (or any other) urbanism – may be a torn in a city’s side, because they’re unortho-dox,avoidgettingofficialpermissions,theydonotfollowformalproceduresforspatialinterventionsand disregardpowerrelationsembeddedinurbanpolicies.However,theycanstillachievewhatcitiesarestriv­ing for, e.g. a wide participation of citizens, social inclusion and equity, public safety etc., and on top of it–asalsoshowninthearticle–withmuchlessresources,inashortertimeandwithlonger-lastingeffects than official, top-down spatial projects. We can assume that such expected results were the reason why theCityofLjubljanaensuredsomefundsforthetestbottom-upneighbourhoodrenewalin2013,andsome other Slovenian cities (e.g. Kranj, see Internet 10) are already following its example. Due to the popular­ity and effectiveness of participatory urbanism, and bearing in mind cities’ diminishing budget, local authoritiesmightstartconsideringhowtobetterutilizebottom-upparticipatoryurbanismformoreeffi­cient urban spatial policies, i.e. planning and governance. Despiteitscritical,sometimesevenrebelliousnature,participatoryurbanismembodiesmanyaspects centraltotheofficialspatialpolicies.Itaddressesburningspatialissuesandmakeseffortstoresolvethem, encouragesprivateinvestmentsorestablishesprivate-publicpartnershipsforimprovementsofpublicinfra­structure, strives to share responsibility for management of public space with local people, and makes developmentmoresustainable,sinceitbuildsacommunitywithstronglocalidentitywhichhelpstoachieve thesetgoals. If people feelconnectedto a placeandto theirneighbours,they care about what happensin theirareaandaremorewillingormotivatedtoparticipateinsolvingspatialandenvironmental,economic as well as social problems. I can thus confirm my hypothesis that participatory urbanism fruitfully com­plements top-down spatial interventions, especially in contributing to the pillars of sustainable develop­ment that are often overlooked by urban planners, i.e. social and cultural sustainability. Network for Space recently prepared recommendations for municipalities on how to include bottom-up spatial practices into public spatial policies, as they also believe that such practices do not substitute spatialplanningandotherformalprocedures,butonlysupplementthem(Peterlin2015).Theymakesmall, quickandlow-costchangesinlinewithofficialregulations,butcanontheotherhand–asatestingground for newmodels ofspatial production, management and governance – also serve to illustratehowinstitu­tionalizedplanningcouldbereorganized.Themunicipalitiesshallthusactivelysupportbottom-upspatial practiceswithfunds,informationandcoordination;includethemindevelopmentplansandusetheirpar­ticipative methods in spatial interventions as well as support pilot projects in this domain; make informationaboutmunicipalhousingstockandlandpubliclyavailableandtransparent;anduseeconomically the municipal property (Od skupnostnih praks…2015). Participatory urbanism also discloses creativity – as well as an entrepreneurial potential – of certain individuals and groupsthat are crucialforkeeping citieslively, evolvingand interestingplaces tolive and work in (Finn 2014a) – which are the features of a »creative city« image. The recent economic crisis has again aroused a growing interest in the creative economy as a means to revive economic development (Florida 2010;Indergaard,PrattandHutton2013),andurbanpoliciesfocusingoncreativityhavebecome one of the main strategies in solving economic and increasingly social issues in cities – in as much sus­tainablewayaspossible.AsItriedtoshow,acontributionofcreativeindividualstourbanspatialinterventions and governance is not negligible, at least in Ljubljana. Furthermore, researchers from the global South, mostseverelyhitbytheausteritymeasures,pointedoutthatgrassrootscreativityasanalternativeisworth pursuing »because of the opportunities offered for a way out of the crisis and into the development of a new andbettersociety«(Leontidou2015,72).Despitethefactthatthedemiseofeconomiccrisisusuallyencour­agesnewinvestments,whichleadtolessunder-orunusedurbanspacesandthusendangerDIYpractices, it is to be hoped that an increase of financial capital will motivate cities to take a step further and proper­ly support creative participative initiatives. In such a way, cities could boost their green creative image, soothecitizens’dissatisfactionwithslow,rigidandoccasionally»misfired«spatialinterventions,andmaybe findasuitablemodelformoreefficienturbanismandspatialpolicyaswellasforurbansustainabledevel­opment. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:ThepaperisaresultoftheprojectSurviving,living,thriving:Creativityasaway oflife(Z6-6841),forwhichtheauthoracknowledgesafinancialsupportoftheSlovenianResearchAgency. 6 References Abbott, J. 1996: Sharing the City. London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315070759 Arnstein, S. R. 1969: A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Bajič, B. 2015: Ustvarjanje prostorov ustvarjalnosti: sodobni rokodelski sejmi v Ljubljani kot produkcija lokalnosti. Traditiones 44-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/traditio2015440308 Bajič,B.2017:Againstcreativity:Looselystructuredthoughtsonalooselydefinedtopic.Traditiones46-1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/Traditio2017460205 Bole,D.2008:Culturalindustryasaresultofnewcitytertiarization.ActageographicaSlovenica48-2.DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS48202 Bond, S., Thompson-Fawcett, M. 2007: Public participation and New Urbanism: a conflicting agenda? Planning Theory and Practice 8-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350701664689 Bradley,K.2015:Open-sourceurbanism:Creating,multiplyingandmanagingurbancommons.Footprint 9-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7480/footprint.9.1.901 Cerar,A.2010:»BlokParty«vSavskemnaselju.Internet:http://ipop.si/2010/05/23/blok-party-v-savskem­naselju/ (23.8.2017). Cerar,A.2015:Vključevanjeprebivalcevvurejanjeprostoranalokalniravni:primerregeneracijeizbranih ljubljanskih stanovanjskih sosesk. Doctoral thesis, University of Ljubljana. Ljubljana. Cernea,M.1988:Nongovernmentalorganizationsandlocaldevelopment.WorldBankDiscussionPapers40. Internet: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/723711468739268149/pdf/multi-page.pdf (2.8.2018). Chernyakova, I., Villeré, M., Casalegno, F., Giusti, L., Schladow, Z. 2012: Civic media platforms and par­ticipatoryurbanism:Acriticalreflection.InternationalJournalofArchitecturalComputing10-2.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1260/1478-0771.10.2.253 Ciglič,R.,Perko,D.2013:Europe’slandscapehotspots.ActageographicaSlovenica53-1.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.3986/AGS53106 Courage, C. 2013: The global phenomenon of tactical urbanism as an indicator of new forms of citizen­ ship. Engage in the Visual Arts 32. de Souza, M. L. 2010: Which right to which city? In defence of political-strategic clarity. Interface 2-1. Evans,G.2002:Culturalplanning:Anurbanrenaissance?London,NewYork.DOI:https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203459744 Finn, D. 2014a: DIY urbanism: implications for cities. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 7-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.891149 Finn, D. 2014b: Introduction to the special issue on DIY urbanism. Journal of Urbanism: International ResearchonPlacemakingandUrbanSustainability7-4.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.959154 Florida,R.L.2002:Theriseofthecreativeclass:AndHowit’stransformingwork,leisure,communityand everyday life. New York. Florida,R.L.2010:Thegreatreset:HowNewwaysoflivingandworkingdrivepost-crashprosperity.New York. Forkert, K. 2016: Austere creativity and volunteer-run public services: The case of Lewisham’s libraries. New Formations 87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3898/newf.87.1.2016 Gans, H. J. 1962: The urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans. New York. Indergaard, M., Pratt, A. C., Hutton, T. A. 2013: Creative cities after the fall of finance. Cities 33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.09.007 Internet 1: http://prostorisodelovanja.si/ (12.5.2017). Internet 2: http://www.bunker.si/slo/projekt-sostenuto (12.5.2017). Internet 3: https://med.over.net/forum5/viewtopic.php?t=4796987 (12.5.2017). Internet 4: https://www.urbanet.info/world-urban-population/ (12.5.2017). Internet5:https://www.visitljubljana.com/en/visitors/explore-the-region/about-ljubljana/ljubljana-basics/ (12.5.2017). Internet 6: http://sustainabletop100.org/ (2.8.2018). Internet7:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/winning-cities/2016-ljubljana/(2.8.2018). Internet 8: https://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/ljubljana (2.8.2018). Internet 9: http://prostoroz.org/portfolio/items/savsko-naselje/ (12.5.2017). Internet 10: http://www.preplanina.si/ (12.5.2017). Interviewee 1: local inhabitant (13.3.2017, 14.10.2017). Interviewee 2: association’s member (28.1.2015). Interviewee 3: initiator (30.3.2016). Interviewee 4: project coordinator (23.1.2017). Iveson,K.2013:Citieswithinthecity:Do-it-yourselfurbanismandtherighttothecity.InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Research 37-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12053. Jabareen, Y. 2014: »Do it yourself« as an informal mode of space production: conceptualizing informality. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 7-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.884975 Keresztély,K.,Scott,J.W. 2012:Urbanregenerationinthepost-socialistcontext:Budapestandthesearch forasocialdimension.EuropeanPlanningStudies20-7.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.674346 Kozina, J. 2016: Življenjsko okolje ustvarjalnih ljudi v Sloveniji. Geografija Slovenije 35. Ljubljana. Kozina,J.2018:Demographiccharacteristicsofcreativeworkers:Under-activateddevelopmentpotentials in Slovenia? Acta geographica Slovenica 58-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4602 Kozina,J.,Bole,D.2017a:AgglomerationofbohemiansacrossdifferentspatialscalesinSlovenia.Theimpact of artists on contemporary urban development in Europe. GeoJournal Library 123. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53217-2_8 Kozina, J., Bole, D. 2017b: Creativity at the European periphery: Spatial distribution and developmental implicationsintheLjubljana region. CreativeindustriesinEurope:Driversofnewsectoralandspatial dynamics. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56497-5_11 Kozina, J., Tiran, J., Poljak Istenič, S., Repolusk, P., Ercegović, J., Krušec, K. 2017: Inventory report on the state of the art of relevant public institutions, vulnerable/marginalized groups and UPA in pilot areas (InterregDanube:AgriGo4Cities).Internet:http://www.interreg-danube.eu/uploads/media/approved_ project_output/0001/09/ca6788e581b3085e0e60755c366fabd5ef274922.pdf (1.10.2017). Krivý, M., Kaminer, T. 2013: Introduction: The participatory turn in urbanism. Footprint 7-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7480/footprint.7.2.766 Landry, C. 2000: The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. London. Lefebvre, H. 1996: Writings on Cities. Oxford. Leontidou, L. 2015: »Smart cities« of the debt crisis: Grassroots creativity in Mediterranean Europe. The Greek Review of Social Research 144-.´. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/grsr.8626 Ljubljana European Green Capital 2016. Luxembourg, 2015.Lovšin,P.,Jurman,U.,Doepner,S.,Šušteršič,A.2015:5letonkrajzačasnosti.Onkrajšt.4:5letOnkrajgradbišča. Ljubljana. Mehle,B.2017.BandeLjubljane,1.del:Savskabanda:dvajsetpretepovnadan.Internet:https://www.dnevnik.si/ 1042766158 (31.3.2017). Mežnarič, I., Rep, R., Mizori Zupan, T. 2008: Priročnik za načrtovanje, vodenje in vrednotenje procesov sodelovanja javnosti. Internet: http://www.mju.gov.si/fileadmin/mju.gov.si/pageuploads/JAVNA_ UPRAVA/NVO/Prirocnik_sodelovanje_javnosti_slo.pdf (12.5.2017). Mlinar, Z. 1973: Sociologija lokalnih skupnosti. Ljubljana. Mould,O.2014:Tacticalurbanism:Thenewvernacularofthecreativecity.GeographyCompass8-8.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12146 Nurse,K.2006:Cultureasthefourthpillarofsustainabledevelopment.Internet:http://placemakers.wdfiles.com/ local files/theoretical-analysis-examined/Cultureas4thPillarSD.pdf (17.2.2016). Odskupnostnihprakskjavnimpolitikam.Priporočilazaskupnostnepraksevurejanjuprostora.Prostori sodelovanja 2, 2015. Peterlin, M. 2015: Od skupnostnih praks k javnim politikam. Prostori sodelovanja 2. Pichler-Milanović, N. 2012: SOSTENUTO: Economic and social innovations in the field of culture and creationactivities,forbottom-uprevitalisationoftheinner-cityTabordistrictinLjubljana(Slovenia). Internet: http://www.bunker.si/slo/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Sostenuto_evalvacijska-studija.pdf (12.5.2017). Poljak Istenič, S. 2015: Kolo kot akter ustvarjalne urbane regeneracije. Glasnik SED 55-3–4. PoljakIstenič,S.2016:Revivingpublicspacesthroughcyclingandgardening.Ljubljana–EuropeanGreen Capital 2016. Etnološka tribina 39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15378/1848-9540.2016.39.06 PoljakIstenič,S.2017:Creativity:Anintroductiontopopularconcepts,topics,anddiscussions.Traditiones 46-1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/Traditio2017460201 Poljak Istenič, S. 2018: Green resistance or reproduction of neoliberal politics? Grassroots collaborative practices in Slovenia’s »Green Capital« Ljubljana. Ethnologia Europaea 48-1. Reynolds,J.P.1969:Publicparticipationinplanning.TownPlanningReview40-2.https://doi.org/10.3828/ tpr.40.2.dr215u538245277g Silver, H., Scott, A., Kazepov, Y. 2010: Participation in urban contention and deliberation. International JournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch34-3.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00963.x Skupnostne prakse v urejanju prostora, 2014. Prostori sodelovanja 1-1. SURS2017:Prebivalstvopostarostiinspolu,občine,Slovenija,polletno.Internet:http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/ Dialog/varval.asp?ma=05C4002S&ti=&path=../Database/Dem_soc/05_prebivalstvo/10_stevilo_preb/20_ 05C40_prebivalstvo_obcine/&lang=2 (12.5.2016). Talen,E.2002:ThesocialgoalsofNewUrbanism.HousingPolicyDebate13-1.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10511482.2002.9521438 TrajnostnaurbanastrategijaMestneobčineLjubljana2014–2020,2015.MestnaobčinaLjubljana.Internet: http://ppmol.org/urbanizem5/upload/documents/TUS_StrMOL_20151228_final_pop.pdf(12.5.2017). Uršič, M. 2016:Characteristicsof spatialdistributionofcreativeindustriesinLjubljanaandtheLjubljana region. Acta geographica Slovenica 56-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ags.745 Uršič, M. 2017: Critical reconsideration of social and cultural elements that constitute the creative ecosystem of a city: Examples from Slovenia and Japan. Traditiones 46-1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.3986/Traditio2017460203 Vodopivec, N. 2017: Creativity in production and work: Experiences from Slovenia. Traditiones 46-1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/Traditio2017460202 Wortham-Galvin,B. D. 2013:Ananthropologyofurbanism:Howpeoplemakeplaces(andwhatdesigners and planners might learn from it). Footprint 7-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7480/footprint.7.2.768 Zardini, M. 2008: A new urban takeover. Actions: What You Can Do with the City. Montreal. Žaucer, T., Peterlin, M., Uršič, M., Očkerl, P., Marn, T. 2012: Kreativna urbana regeneracija: priložnosti v Ljubljanski urbani regiji. Ljubljana.