Abstract

Critical approaches to the smart city concept are used to begin highlighting the promises of makerspaces, that is to say, those emerging urban sites that promote sharing practices; exercise community-based forms of governance; and utilize local manufacturing technologies. A bird’s-eye-view of the history of makerspaces is provided tracing their roots back to the hacker movement. Drawing from secondary sources, their community-building, learning and innovation potential is briefly discussed. Makerspaces, this essay argues, can serve as hubs and vehicles for citizen-driven transformation and, thus, play a key part in a more inclusive, participatory and commons-oriented vision of the smart city.

Excerpts

Introduction

Urbanization is a trend of our times, with the largest share of the human population globally living in cities; a trend that is only increasing. Cities are economic centers that through the consumption of massive resources lead to heavy environmental impact as well as to social contestations and conflicts. This creates the need for new conceptualizations for a city that will be able to deal with the current issues in more imaginative, inclusive and sustainable ways.

In this paper, critical approaches to the smart city concept are used to begin highlighting the promises of emerging urban sites that promote sharing practices and commons-based peer production.

In light of the rise of the collaborative commons, i.e., shared resources, the concept of urban “makerspaces” is discussed. The latter are community-led, open spaces where individuals share resources and meet on a regular basis to collaboratively engage in creative commons-oriented projects, usually utilizing open source software and hardware technologies. Through the intersection of digital technologies and urban life, several initiatives have emerged that attempt to circumvent the dependence on private firms or governments to provide solutions.

What is the community-building, learning and innovation potential of makerspaces towards a more inclusive, commons-oriented smart city?

Community-building potential

Makerspaces can be viewed as community-run hubs that connect citizens not only of the same city but also of other cities worldwide. Approximately 66% of the UK-based makerspaces collaborate with other UK-based or foreign makerspaces on a regular basis, while 46% contribute to commons-oriented, open source projects which normally have a global orientation. Yet, individuals are more engaged and committed to one local makerspace. Further, two of the top reasons people use makerspaces are socializing and learning. Hence, makerspaces can be platforms that cultivate relationships and networks, building social capital, i.e., “social networks and the attendant norms of trust and reciprocity”.

However, claims around the potentialities of makerspaces are still speculative and depend on how individuals associate with such places. While makerspaces have been built in ethnically and geographically diverse environments, there is yet a lack of racial and gender diversity within many of them. For instance, membership is predominantly male in 80% of UK makerspaces and 77% of China’s makers are male. Additionally, 81% of U.S. makers are male with an average income of $106,000. These are indications that participation in the maker movement is heavily dominated by affluent men.

As an attempt to correct this lack of diversity, some feminist and people of color-led makerspaces have emerged, such as Mz Baltazar’s Laboratory in Vienna and Mothership Hackermoms in Berkley (feminist spaces created in 2008 and 2012 respectively) or Liberating Ourselves Locally in Oakland (a “people of color-led” space created in 2012). However, such strategies have been met with controversy, since they are deemed to go against the principle of openness.

Learning potential

The learning potential of making coupled with open learning environments; project-based learning; informal tinkering; and peer collaboration can motivate the social learning and personalized involvement of participants. Makerspaces exhibit the aforementioned characteristics and, thus, show great promise as emerging learning hubs. That is why makerspaces have recently generated much interest in diverse educational circles. For example, several libraries and museums have created spaces with the aim to empower creative activity, resource-sharing, and active engagement with making, materials, processes, and ideas in relation to their collections and exhibits.

It appears that makerspaces offer the capacity for informal community activity as well as a proper learning environment with a focus on productive processes rather than skill-set building. Varying activities may be combined (like programming and hardware building and even manufacturing tools development), following the approach of constructionism.

Nevertheless, inclusivity and participation in such educational activities is not assured. Although more than 50% of UK makerspaces offer support, courses and tool inductions, the majority of makers are well-educated and technologically-confident. Likewise, 97% of makers in the U.S. have attended or graduated from college, while 80% say they have post-graduate education. Thus, to facilitate learning for diverse users, makerspaces should be staffed by qualified educators who are knowledgeable about theories of teaching and learning as well as about user needs and behaviors.

Innovation potential

In makerspaces people innovate and learn together by making things and using the Web to globally connect and share designs, tutorials and code. They offer creative environments where sustainable entrepreneurs, potentially with diverse motives and backgrounds, can meet and interact and thus benefit from synergies and the cross-pollination of ideas. Moreover, in makerspaces designers can come together and collaborate in participatory explorations during the use phase by prototyping, adding small-scale interventions and, therefore, moving from a “design-in-the-studio” to a “design-in-use” strategy.

Several innovative entrepreneurial endeavors and start-ups have emerged through makerspaces. This article refers to some prominent cases with the aim to provide an overview of the most mature examples that cover a wide spectrum of areas, from ICT and local manufacturing technologies to farming, culture and neuroscience.

In all, makerspaces should not be viewed merely as experimentation sites with local manufacturing technologies but as places “where people are experimenting with new ideas about the relationships amongst corporations, designers, and consumers”. The review of makerspaces-related innovation illustrated that they mainly produce user-led, incremental product and process innovations. Some of the aforementioned projects and eco-systems, such as the RepRap- or Arduino-based eco-systems, may represent both the Schumpeterian and social-oriented understanding of innovation. They seem to create win-win situations for both instigators/entrepreneurs and society, and inaugurate commons-oriented business models which arguably go beyond the classical corporate paradigm and its extractive profit-maximizing practices.

Conclusions

Are makerspaces a manifestation of the “new spirit of capitalism” that has successfully incorporated and adapted several of its various critical cultures? Or could we consider makerspaces as sites with non-negligible post-capitalist dynamics? Both possibilities still exist.

If we subscribe to the idea that at least some makerspaces can be seen as CBPP in practice, then, makerspaces may belong to a new form of capitalism but, at the same time, also highlight ways in which this new form might be transcended. If the dominant discourse of the “smart city” project is aligned with a neoliberal, corporate vision for urban development, then the “makerspace” could simultaneously be a source of legitimacy for the project and also serve as an institution for citizen-driven transformation.

An alternative vision for the smart city may be possible through a commons-oriented approach, geared towards the democratization of means of production. The basic tenet of this approach encourages citizens to participate in creating solutions collectively instead of merely adopting proprietary technology. In addition to virtual connections observed in several sharing economy initiatives, makerspaces can be the physical nodes of a collaborative culture. Further, they can serve as a new “design template”, where knowledge/design is developed and shared as a global digital commons while the actual customized manufacturing takes place locally, thus initiating a decisive break from the current production model.

Full title: “Making (in) the Smart City: The Emergence of Makerspaces”.

Originally published at Telematics & Informatics.

Find this and more articles here.

Photo by olabimakerspace

The post The emergence of makerspaces appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Khushboo Balwani: Here’s the problem: How can consumers become producers? The shift from consumer culture to maker culture is often described in terms of a synthesis between consumers and producers —”prosumers.” What practical steps can be taken for people to become prosumers?

Here’s how one organization is working on the problem: In 2002, Neil Gershenfeld, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), visited India to teach and explore projects that overlap with his work on fabrication labs or “Fab Labs.” Responding to the challenges facing the local community, Gershenfeld suggested developing a Fab Lab in Vigyan Ashram, an education center for science located in Pabal, India. The organization has been working with the local community of Pabal since 1983 to solve problems in the region with the help of low-cost materials and traditional tools. With a focus on self-managed sustainability, it has enabled the development of new models of peer production and local entrepreneurship.

The first Fab Lab outside of MIT, the Vigyan Ashram Fab Lab worked with MIT in procuring the latest tools and machines for collaborative production, rather than relying on ready-made solutions. Since then, several Fab Labs have been created worldwide.

Indeed, today there are some 665 Fab Labs in 65 countries. Taken as a whole, Fab Lab is a distributed international network of scientific researchers and community inventors who define, conduct, and apply new discoveries and inventions for the benefit of both researchers and the local community. Fab Labs support a global design commons where members design, code, share knowledge, and create digital instruction manuals using open-source principles. What gets designed in one lab can theoretically be fabricated in another lab, anywhere in the world.

The projects at the Vigyan Ashram Fab Lab emerge either from local researchers or the local community. Once projects are conceived, the organization passes them to its students and opens a global discussion within the larger network of Fab Labs to leverage open designs and shared knowledge. Several prototypes are made locally and tested within the community using shared assets (space, knowledge, tools) until the final design is developed.

Results:

• The Vigyan Ashram Fab Lab has developed a number of innovative solutions to local problems, such as a pedal-powered generator, egg incubator, and weather data lodger.
• Thanks to its proven solutions, the Vigyan Ashram Fab Lab has become a point of reference and a consultant to local and national authorities on urban challenges. Furthermore, it has inspired the government of India and the state government of Maharashtra to develop a plan to establish tinkering labs and innovation centers at both local and district levels, as reported by Yogesh Kulkarni, executive director of Vigyan Ashram.

Learn more from:

• Fab Lab Vigyan Ashram
• The Fab Foundation

This case study is adapted from our latest book, “Sharing Cities: Activating the Urban Commons.” Get a copy today.
Header image of students in Vigyan Ashram building 3D printer under guidance of Japanese Fab Lab worker Mr. Yutaka Tokushima. Provided by Chihiro Matsuura.

The post Fab Labs supports local entrepreneurship with open-source and peer-to-peer production appeared first on P2P Foundation.

He saw the existing strategies as rigidly centralized processes dominated by establishment “experts” and hostile to the idea of public participation. There were neither infrastructures nor organizational models to support a culture of creativity and innovation. Martin wanted to develop a culture in which openness, sharing and cooperation could drive new forms of participatory regional development.

When the two of us set out to find solutions to this challenge, we found answers in the community workshops, Fab Labs and hackerspaces in urban areas. These are the spaces where tech-savvy people, hackers, and people interested in science or digital art come together to exchange ideas and produce new things. Unfortunately, these spaces seemed entirely unsuited to rural areas because they are usually tailored to very narrow groups of specialists. Also, a feasibility study for introducing such spaces in rural regions stressed the importance of collaborating with people from various business, education, media, and political communities. We also realized that is would be crucial to create a structure that would allow any projects to be financially independent.

We imagined Otelos as places where ordinary people could find pleasure in sharing knowledge and building things together. The projects could be about constructing autonomous spider robots or building raised beds for gardening. They could be about making soap and crafting jewelry from recycled materials. The people who might wish to participate in the Otelos could be children, people interested in agriculture, cultural networkers, “mechatronics” technicians, do-it-yourselfers, game developers, and many others.

Capturing People’s Imaginations and Making Things Possible

The first Otelos began in 2010 in cooperation with the municipalities of Vöcklabruck and Gmunden. The municipal councils decided that the municipalities would provide the physical spaces and budgets for the Otelos for at least three years (a commitment that many municipalities have since extended to an unlimited period of time).

Those municipal council decisions fulfilled an initial requirement for the independence we desired. In each community, we tried to identify people who were interested in forming a group that would organize and design the individual Otelo venues. In each place, at least five members came together who enjoyed hosting and networking with other people – a model of volunteer organizing that has proved quite successful. This group keeps an eye on new trends and initiates experimental projects of the sort mentioned above.

Soon, the first Otelo jam sessions and “DenkBars” were held – DenkBar being a play on words: “denkbar” means “imaginable” in German, so a Denk-Bar would be a bar or pub for open meetings not dominated by experts imparting knowledge, but by interested amateurs who share a passion for a topic of common interest. We also developed what we call the “node model,” which enables groups to use space in the Otelos long-term, free of charge, and without any pressure to achieve results. The only requirement is that the groups share their knowledge and experiences and provide opportunities for others to participate. The nodes let a creative economy project evolve and do in-depth experiments with public funding support.

The resulting projects have been quite diverse. There are electronics do-it-yourselfers who build Tesla coils for making music, light painters and people developing municipal energy-saving projects. There are people exchanging ideas about innovative educational models and others organizing new forms of consumer-producer partnerships for sourcing food. An important aspect of all of the nodes is that participants come from very different contexts. Most of them would never meet each other in “normal” life.

Belonging and Being Able to Grow

What began as an experiment in 2010 became the first major challenge for the Otelo Association in 2012 when two new venues were opened. How should they be managed and relate to each other? It quickly became clear that decentralization would be necessary in order to maintain Otelo’s vitality as well as our ability to make decisions.

It was decided to invite individual local projects to start local Otelo associations if they wished. Today, these associations are the governing bodies for local Otelos – with the Otelo Charter serving as a networking element. The Charter outlines our cultural ethic of innovation and formulates the fund­amental perspective of all Otelo venues. Today, the associations meet twice a year as a network and participate in activities involving various Otelo venues, such as festivals.

By the end of 2014, there were twenty-six Otelo nodes in eleven locations in Austria and Germany. Otelos are places where people can delve into all sorts of arts and crafts, electronics, projects and alternative educational approaches. They are places where people play and dance together, produce free media, design new forms of work, and pursue countless other passions. All of the ideas and projects developed in the Otelos are made available under a Creative Commons license or through workshops or various forms of documentation. This is in keeping with the motto, Knowledge is a commons!

In a few years, the term “Otelo” could be defined like this in the dictionary:

ōtelō, adjective: Welcoming; being part of a diverse, open community; invited to join in actively; keen to experiment; free, touched, inspired and alive; having found one’s place.

Patterns of Commoning, edited by Silke Helfrich and David Bollier, is being serialized in the P2P Foundation blog. Visit the Patterns of Commoning and Commons Strategies Group websites for more resources.

Martin Hollinetz (Germany) is a social pedagogue, vocational educator and regional developer. An Ashoka Fellow since 2013, he is a lecturer at the University of Art and Design Linz and was elected Austrian of the Year in the field of creative industries in 2013.

Hannelore Hollinetz (Germany) is a musician and educator. She works as an actress, project developer and facilitator for projects for children and youths, and is a cofounder, with Martin Hollinetz, of the Otelo network and Otelo eGen.

Photo by Robert Lender

The post Patterns of Commoning: Otelo – Open Technology Labs in Austria appeared first on P2P Foundation.

In his recent speech at the Smart City Expo World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, researcher, activist, and author David Bollier argued that urban enclosures, which he says is the “privatization of shared wealth,” create jam-packed cities by commodifying shared resources.

Bollier presented a new vision for cities — one driven by bottom-up engagement, citizen participation, and innovative ways of thinking about shared spaces and resources.

Bollier argued that to reclaim our cities as commons we need to treat our vital urban resources as shareable common wealth. Doing so creates more long-term value as people have the opportunity to be empowered and to do things themselves. He pointed to several examples supporting the urban commons, including:

• Creative Commons Licensing, which enables people to share and freely use creative works
• FabLabs and Makerspaces, which are new social forms for creating valuable stuff through a commons-based collaboration
• Platform Cooperatives, which create shared platforms “as an antidote to the so-called death stars” of the sharing economy
• Alternative Currencies as a way to retain some of the value created regionally as opposed to having it siphoned away
• Non-digital commons projects, including land trusts, urban agriculture and community gardens, and participatory budgeting projects which empower citizens to work with city leaders to create budget priorities

Bollier concluded by emphasizing that cities can be incubators for developing new solutions to systemic problems and that transnational partnerships between cities around the world will be an important element to further the movement of cities as a commons.

Video description: “A new type of citizen economy is emerging – the City as a Commons. This is not a tech platform or economic strategy as such, but a bold re-imagining of the city as a living social organism that invites everyone to co-create, open-source style. Through FabLabs, data sharing, platform co-operatives and many participatory systems, innovative urban commons are transforming city governance, commerce, design, social services, and everyday life.”

By Cat Johnson; cross-posted from Shareable

The post How Can We Redesign Cities as Shared Spaces? appeared first on P2P Foundation.