Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
to energy reductions. Instead, this third type of 'smartness' comes from the deliber-
ate use of the mechanisms of learning to ensure progress. However the conditional
word 'may' used in the preceding statement must be stressed. Relatively few cit-
ies have availed themselves of this type of opportunity. Certainly some cities have
developed new innovative procedures from their own administrative departments,
such as: Portland's innovative sustainability programmes; Bilboa's impressive re-
generation; or in middle income countries, Curitiba's planning initiatives since the
late 1960s or Medell￭n's social urban projects. Others have brought in experts from
private companies that specialise in a variety of development projects, from mass
transit to new management procedures. But if the emphasis is placed on the extent
to which a collective learning process in a city is developed there is more scope for
cities to create future new policies in very different content areas, since it is the
pro-
cess of knowledge creation
that is being developed, not a particular '
way of doing'
,
issues discussed in the Knowledge City (Chap. 10).
The big problem is how to translate the knowledge into new urban actions.
Campbell (2012) identified four crucial elements that can be viewed as improving
city-learning. One is the
knowledge-gathering
activity. This is how new knowledge
about such features as improving urban life, functioning and sustainability is ob-
tained from internal and external sources. The improvement possibilities also deal
with finding ways in which blockages to the application of ideas can be resolved.
Another element consists of whether urban places have an
agency or office for
managing this process
and also provide a repository for the information obtained,
one that is effective, valued and can be used by the decision-makers in the city. A
third element is described as the '
institutional process'
, procedures for ensuring that
the knowledge obtained is disseminated and discussed with appropriate officials in
the various organs of government and also with other stakeholders in the city, mak-
ing it easier to create support for new policy options. Often this takes the form of a
type of superagency in the city to initiate and coordinate all or major developments,
such as the IPPUC established in Curitiba in 1965 (Campbell 2012) or Bilboa's
Metropoli-30. A fourth element is probably the most difficult to achieve, for it in-
volves creating a
milieu of trust
among the not only the various decision-makers
but also the stakeholders in the city. Within all places there are always rivalries and
differences of opinion between competing government departments, businesses and
other interests. If a common goal to improve the liveability and sustainability of
urban place then there must be discussion and resolution of differences in pursuit of
a common aim. This is probably the most difficult part to achieve, for trusting rela-
tionships are needed to ensure the exchange of information that is not codified, but
is internalized and tacit in character, information that is only effectively shared by
personal contacts. These issues have already been discussed in the learning process
of Knowledge Cities (Chap. 11). Frequently the personal contacts and trust come
from participation in the conferences and study tours linked to the networks associ-
ated with the various themes. Or they may emerge simply from C2C linkages that
have been developed, and even in a more general way from the more limited goals
of the city business or trade associations that promoted their own agendas and often
pressured their municipalities to follow policies that supported their aims.
