2001-June 6-8 MILU - Iiinstitute.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

This matrix serves as a framework to articulate the topics for further research. Avoiding, on the one hand splintering of focus when we would the knowledgesuppliers (research institutes universities) take the lead and on the other hand, avoiding the dominance of the demand side, that would lead to short term answers for problems of developers with a little innovative character. What Habiforum wants to do is sail between these rocks; finding a balance between innovative new concepts that are not too far fetched to be absorbed in practise. 7.
Ad II: General basis for evaluation. The theoretical framework as it was called, was drawn up as a result of the founding meeting and was presented during the <strong>MILU</strong> workshop on the 45th IFHP World congress in Rotterdam, September <strong>2001</strong>. This theoretical framework was put on paper 1 ) and made available for all participants of the Oslo meeting. The essence of this theoretical framework is a list of Opportunities and Constraints related to the aspects that are considered essential for a solid evaluation of project or cases. Aspects Opportunities Constraints Social Political Economic Structural • Satisfying common community goals. • Increase in shared resources & public services including open space. • Improved interactivity & opportunities • Improved coherence between social, political and ecological boundaries. • Shared goals across political interests. • Creating economic strength through concentrated diversity. • Cost efficiencies from higher density. • Long-term flexibility & adaptability. • Optimal use of increasing land value. • Shared public resources. • More efficient use of infrastructure. • Increased variety & intensity in communications and transportation. • Local social agendas may negatively bias planning and development preferences. • Addressing local not regional issues. • Limits to social integration. • Poor political and regulatory co-ordination • Competing planning territories and interests. • Poor regional perspective & co-ordination. • Higher initial investment capital (risk) required. • Potential competition for resources. • Addressing short term, not long term needs. • Greater dependency on adjacent uses. • Timing affects public/private investment. • Poor integrated & comprehensive planning. • Large initial planning and design efforts. • Greater maintenance & management effort. 1 Noot: Arun Jain & Huibert Haccoû; Annex 8 8.
Page 1 and 2: IFHP Working Party Multifunctional
Page 3 and 4: Contents Introduction Participants
Page 5 and 6: Participants As could be expected f
Page 7: These topics fitted perfectly in th
Page 11 and 12: Theoretical frame work For the eval
Page 13 and 14: Report of working group A: Changing
Page 15 and 16: • Create new city spaces over the
Page 17 and 18: Significance for the Oslo-cases: Am
Page 19 and 20: 1. CONTEXT The following is a list
Page 21 and 22: 5. WORKING PARTY DISCUSSIONS Follow
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 3. Evaluation (plenary sess
Page 25 and 26: List of Participants and e mail add
Page 27 and 28: Name Organisation Address Zip- City
Page 29 and 30: Annexes to the report of the Oslo m

2001-June 6-8 MILU - Iiinstitute.nl

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?