Students Breaking Barriers: Workshops as Brokers in Riverfront Collaboration and Design

Abstract

Cities and rivers share a deeply intertwined history. Rivers, as conveyors of commerce and sources of fresh water, were at the origin of the earliest urban civilizations. Until the advent of the railroad, the primacy of cities was intrinsically linked to their location along the system of water-based transport and communication. The waterfront was the place where trade took place and the economic engine of urban centers (Mauch & Zeller, 2008). The Industrial Revolution changed the paradigm. The urban river was used and abused as a source of power, at first, and ultimately as a convenient natural sewage system. The rise of land-based transport stripped the urban river of its role as the city’s main connection port to the outside world. Ironically, it was over reclaimed strips on the rivers’ banks that the cheap and unimpeded corridors for railroads and highways were often found, resulting in active destruction of natural banks, encroachment of floodplains, worsening flood risk, and leading to additional flood protection infrastructure on the banks. Ultimately, all these elements created linear barriers, separating the city from its river (Mann, 1973). Neglect and environmental degradation ensued, and by the mid-20th century, most river systems of the Global North had been severely impacted. The urban riverfront was now often the backyard for industry, a readily available space for landfill. All these changes cut off riverine populations from their river. Social recreation along the banks was gone, as were the less intensive economic activities, such as fishing (Tvedt, 2015). Crucially, these transformations were seldom in the best interest of the local communities, and decision-making was then conducted without there being much in the way of public scrutiny and consultation. Relocation of industries and port infrastructure, introduction of environmental standards that slowly allowed improved water quality, and the opportunity to remove linear barriers have once again opened up the riverfront. And cities are falling in love with their rivers all over again (Brown, 2009; Castonguay & Evenden, 2012; Kondolf & Pinto, 2017). With the returning allure of the waterfront comes a diversity of interests, which are frequently at odds. Decisionmakers, especially in the Global North, are now faced with more intense scrutiny of their actions by a broader range of actors, including local communities. There are legitimate questions over what to do in riverfront interventions: Recovering intervention costs through real estate development presupposes private involvement, but also requires fair distribution of costs and benefits; removing linear infrastructure, such as highways and railroads, may be too expensive and perhaps disrupt transportation provision; the public space should be plentiful but not wasteful, and the uses should be diverse and balanced, catering to different sectors of the population. Often, environmental restoration is limited by existing and hard to replace structures, or may be at odds with social values (Buckley & Crone, 2008; Kondolf & Yang, 2008; May, 2006; Pinto & Kondolf, 2020). These and many more questions should be at the forefront of conscientious riverfront intervention. One major step forward would be to incorporate inputs from local communities and a broader range of actors from early on in the project’s development (Corburn, 2002; Lerner & Holt, 2012). Engaging local communities and interest groups from the beginning will result in more invested stakeholders, some of whom may then become determined actors and active partners in seeing the project successfully implemented (Bright et al., 2002; Golet et al., 2009; Petts, 2007; Sanoff, 2005). As citizens become aware of the natural value and potential of their riverfront, they tend to become more invested stakeholders in defining the future of this prime public space. At the same time, the real-estate market has become more intertwined with global capital flows, with riverfront development often serving as an attractive investment for global elites (Avni, 2017; Brownill, 2013). Actors and interests are not necessarily equally represented or enfranchised, which requires a diverse set of tools to engage them. Less vocal or less enfranchised actors are often those more dearly in need of quality public space and regained access to the riverfront, but they may be unwilling or unable to participate through conventional public hearing procedures. Effective conflict mediation requires leadership, knowledge, a level of impartiality, but one that does not overlook the overarching objectives and greater good that should be achieved out of the interventions. It should actively seek contributions from as broad a range of actors as possible, while avoiding capture of the decision-making process by the most powerful or most vocal stakeholders. There may be resistance to communication between certain groups of stakeholders, and mediation by the public authorities may be perceived as biased by some. The involvement of university students in a multistakeholder process in riverfront renewal processes has been rare and essentially focused on the benefits for students, in terms of skills acquisition, such as linking knowledge to action, critical thinking, interpersonal communication, and contribution to a participatory decision-making culture in future professionals (e.g., Bodorko´s & Pataki, 2009; Brundiers & Wiek, 2013). However, there is less knowledge on societal impacts that can result from such student participation (Daneri et al., 2015) or the importance of students’ participation as catalysts for the relationship between people, researchers, and city planners. In this chapter, we want to focus on the unique role university students can play in catalyzing and supporting effective urban sustainability transformations in rethinking the urban riverfront.