Why Walkshops matter: a deep-dive and hands-on participative process to support urban regeneration

Walkshops and the URBACT Method

The most frequent expression that usually refers to the URBACT method is “action planning”. We know that “Action planning” is a well defined concept when it comes to focus on urban planning (we can consider strategic planning and then action planning as the operational set up of the urban strategy) but the term itself evokes an active and action-led approach to urban planning that we like a lot and we keep as an inspiration to introduce active and pro-active tools that can help co-design and co-creation.  In this perspective, walkshops are one of the most “active” mode that you can to put action planning in practice. In the URBACT toolkit, walkshops are a suggested method to support study visits or peer review among the partner cities (https://urbact.eu/walkshop). In the case of the city of Parma, we used the walkshop and related facilitation and gamification solutions to re-connect with the different components of the ULG after the lockdown. The experiment was a successful one and helped the Thriving Street network to focus on the real potential of such a method.

Like a novel urban safari, the walkshop can be defined as a “walking tour + workshop”. It can be used at every stage of the planning cycle, since it is a method that can support  stakeholder engagement and participation in analysing, debating, proposing alternative solutions for urban regeneration; the method can be also applied to peer-review and to the collection of feedbacks on the IAP from critical friends, or it can be connected to open evaluation and civic monitoring solutions in the review and assessment stage of the IAP. The term itself – “walk-shop” – combines the walk-side (thus, focusing on an open-air and interactive activity that physically brings citizens in the places) and the workshop structure (in this sense, a walkshop needs a list of topics, speakers, facilitators and a well-defined agenda).

Walkshops allow people to see and touch the places where the IAP wants to/decided to intervene. They facilitate the use of imagination (in the semantic sense) and allow open and  “in situ” discussions on alternative scenarios for intervention, thus making visible the pros and cons of the actions that will be included in the urban action plan.

The experience of walkshop in Parma

Parma, the coordinator of the Thriving Street Network, used the walkshop in the district “Oltretorrente”, namely the area beyond (oltre) the stream (torrente) Parma that is the selected area for the URBACT action plan.
Oltretorrente is one of the oldest neighbourhood of the city, very near to the historic centre and densely populated by students and new immigrant citizens. In the area, urban security is perceived as a challenge, many historical shops are under pressure and urban mobility solutions are evaluated as a key driver for the improvement of the environmental sustainability in the area (the main secondary school hub is located in Oltretorrente and this generates traffic congestion in the rush hour) and for the economic revamping of local and traditional shops.
Keeping these challenges into account, the IAP of the Municipality of Parma for the area was branded “Vai oltre”(Go beyond!): a claim that has the twofold meaning of “Let’go and use the Oltretorrente as area also for shopping and for free-time” and “Let’s go beyond pre-judgements and consolidated visions for the area”.
The URBACT project involved the local community and the institutions of the Oltretorrente but the participatory process had to be implemented during the lockdown and the analysis to identify sustainable mobility interventions that could generate positive effects on the urban area on the sense of community, social cohesion, commerce and in the attractiveness of the neighbourhood were mostly managed on distance. The facilitators in charge of supporting the ULG suggested that one walkshop could work to make the ULG see the actions included in the IAP and to recover a “community” dimension after the limitations due to the pandemics.  

The participatory process was structured in the following phases:
1. Presentation of the participatory process: the calendar, the stakeholders map and presentation of the problem analysis activity
2. Implementation of the problem analysis with the use of an online participatory mapping system
3. The future scenario: the co-construction of a desirable scenario to facilitate the collection of ideas and the emergence of the objectives of the Integrated Action Plan
4. Actions: co-definition of actions for the Integrated Action Plan
5. Identification of possible solutions or small-scale actions during a walkshop in the Oltretorrente district
6. Co-evaluation of the effects of the pilot activity
7. Preparation of the draft of the integrated action plan

In this framework, the walkshop focused on the co-design of small-scale actions and it was organized during the sustainable mobility week. The duration of the walkshop was two hours on a Saturday morning, so to allow the maximum rate of participation. The walkshop addressed two of the main dimensions related to alternative solutions for urban mobility in the Oltretorrente: the impact on the accessibility and on the attractiveness of the district.
Participants (15 people) were divided into two teams with one facilitator for each group. The teams were randomly created and each participant had to pick up a card with a character to play during the entire walkshop.  The walkshop included pre-defined stops in selected hot spots (6 in total). In each hot spot, a guest speaker introduced some inputs that were discussed in group during the walk with the support of facilitators.
Grids and supporting material to collect ideas and inputs were provided in advance and managed in peers. A “working kit” (hardcover notebook, map of the area, pencils, evaluation grids) was distributed at the beginning of the walkshop. The kit was designed to be not too heavy and easy to use while walking.

Let’s go beyond: the practical organisation of the walkshop in Parma

In the first part of the walk, each team observed the quarter using methods of "creative thinking" to facilitate new perspectives and to change point of view respect of the mobility issues in Oltretorrente.
In the second part, a role play activity was carried out. Each participant was asked to play a specific role (characters were assigned random at the beginning of the walkshop) so to understand what strengths and limits there were in moving around the neighbourhood and to embed different perspectives on problems and suggested solutions. The characters proposed to the participants were: 5 years old child, 16 year old teenager, 37 year old woman, disabled person visually impaired, person with reduced mobility, 52 year old cyclist, Dutch Erasmus student, 78 and 80 year old couple, clothing shop owner, cafe owner, owner of a B&B, off-site university student, father of an 8-year-old child, 29-year-old boy from south Italy transferred from his employer a few months ago, university professor of the faculty of economics, secondary school teacher, 21-year-old girl, couple of French tourists, family of tourists with children from Novara, art historian, Tunisian mother of two children, owner of a take-away, psychologist with a studio in the neighbourhood.
During the walk participants also talk with shop owners and people met in the streets, including some elderly ladies that save the memory of how the Oltretorrente was in the past.
At the end of each stage, the participants answered collectively three guiding questions according to the What|So What| Now what facilitation method. The What|So What| Now What method is a reflective model to understand problems and discover new solutions. Start with the event, understand the consequences and brainstorm ideas. In our walkshop we used three guiding questions: 
• During this stage, what did you see that struck you?
• What would you do to intervene?
• So, what can we do now?

The walkshop agenda: how to design an effective walkshop

In order to not a have a simple walk, walkshops require a dedicated attention to the workshop component but it also imply the planning of the path, that has to be significative and accessible to everybody. The best solution is to possibly identify a loop circuit with a home-base that can serve for the introductory stage and for the final wrap up. In a 2 hours walkshop consider as an average the sequence of five to ten minutes walk and then a 10 minute stop. Stops are important not just because they allow to take rest and breathe but also because they serve for dedicated content and knowledge transfer as well as for structured brainstorming or serious games challenges.
The preliminary set up of the entire path, and the selection of the right stops needs at least one exploratory tour where the project coordinator declares the main topic to be addressed and the facilitators can combine the different aspects to be discussed with places with the walk where something will happen. The “something” can be a testimonial, a digi-scope challenge interacting with heritage, or practical experiences that will engage the participants in an active dialogue with the places.
In the case of Parma, the walkshop was organised after the following agenda:
. 10.30 am Welcome / explanation of the method and material distribution
. 10.40 am First part of the walk dedicated to attractiveness: 3 stages with intermediate stops and talks with experts, residents, shop owners
. 11.30 Second part of the walk dedicated to accessibility
. 12.15 Final discussion at the Community Centre of Oltretorrente
. 12.30 Wrap up and visual rendering of the main inputs originated through the walkshop
The starting and arrival point for the walkshop was in the Community Centre, the Villa Ester, and included 5 stops in significant places from a historical / cultural, social and commercial point of view (see figure 1). At each stage, there was a speaker and a local expert who provided information on the history of the spaces, monuments and buildings and how they changed over time. This action allowed a better understanding of different scenarios for intervention and the possibility to see and imagine alternative to generate concrete repercussions on the quality of life of the community.
At the end of the walk, the participants provided indications starting from the two proposed themes: attractiveness and accessibility.

The results collected and the conclusions of the participants

The walkshop was perceived as a powerful method to take active part in the co-design of the small actions but it was also a great opportunity to enforce trust and connections among stakeholders. Fun and serious gaming were a consistent part of the process for having all participants expressing their thoughts and submitting proposals and ideas.

Attractivity
The reports collected by the participants in the walk concerned the quality of life and the liveability of the neighbourhood, and combined inputs for/from elderly and young users, diversity and gender issues according to the main vocation of the neighbourhood (work, study and leisure time).
Participants underlined the contrast between the great number of people that “use” the neighbourhood and the physical barriers that hinder their movement and limit the willingness or the capability to access the area for reasons not related to study or job.
Requalification of existing shops and facilities, public transport to reduce the number of cars and the noise in the area, green areas, an housing strategy to attract students or staff from the nearby University, opening hours for shops and bars are just some of the suggestions that were discussed and that are seen as a basis also for a constructive dialogue with local migrant groups who live and work in the neighbourhood. Food events, cultural events involving the local libraries and other small-scale activities were identified as “contamination projects” that can enhance the sense of community and can increase the value of the area, so to achieve a greater attractiveness for the Oltretorrente.

Accessibility
The walkshop focused also on accessibility. Different inputs that were collected by the the participants addressed the need for diversification of mobility solutions for different users. Participants reported a high level of visual and acoustic chaos in the main streets in the neighbourhood, due to vehicular traffic. There are areas that are poorly lit and that are perceived as dangerous in the evening. Moving around the area is complicated for people with mobility difficulties and there are few privileged lines for pedestrians and cyclists. In general, there is little cleanliness and few spaces suitable for children. It is important to facilitate the use of the neighbourhood by non-residents, so it is necessary to limit the speed of the cars and review the rules for loading and unloading goods. It is also useful to provide greater accessibility and meeting places for parents with children, such as libraries, to encourage integration processes. Some suggestions identified the creation of attraction poles connected by paths accessible for all types of users; and the study of a new plan of commerce and decorum. Finally, the Municipality was asked for a study of traffic flows and cars in the parking areas to understand who the users of the neighbourhood are and how to satisfy their needs to get in the area.