Learning from urban projects: why and how we should unlock the learning potential of urban development projects and programmes

In an earlier post I mentioned that I had been asked to put down some thoughts on learning from urban projects. The thoughts have now been published open source. Link to full text

Forbes Davidson (2022) Learning from urban projects: why and how we should unlock the learning potential of urban development projects and programmes, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, DOI: 10.1080/19463138.2022.2042305

The images below show how a project changes over time, but long term monitoring and evaluation and needed to learn the lessons.

Ismailia Hai el Salam 1982
Ismailia Hai el Salam same location 2007

For more information on the Ismailia projects see here for downloads and links , and here for a list of references. Photographs can be accessed here for early stages in the project and here for more recent images.

Here is the abstract:

Urban projects are developed partly to solve local problems but often have wider aims to influence policy and practise. However, there is very little long-term evaluation carried out, and few systematic efforts to link the experience gained in project development and implementation to wider learning and capacity building. I have written this opinion piece based on my experience both in practise in the public and private sectors and in teaching and research. The paper is divided into three parts. First, why urban projects and programmes are important for learning and capacity building. Second, how we learn from projects and the opportunities and barriers to learning. Third, how we could increase learning by explicitly including learning objectives in project planning and evaluation, strengthening links between practice and learning, and improving long-term access to project materials with learning potential.

I would appreciate any feedback and thoughts that you might have.

A small scale “capital investment project” supported by UN-Habitat in Kosovo to improve local conditions and build capacity in local communities and government. 2014

Istanbul and the case of the elusive Urban Development Guidelines

2010-05-09 08-39-00 Turkey Istanbul 7342 FD

Guidelines on why and how to develop integrated plans and projects were a key output from European countries participating in Habitat II in Istanbul in 1996.  Now, in the build up to Habitat III in 2016 it is useful to ask “What happened?”

The story begins in Istanbul.  At the Habitat conference in Istanbul in 1996 many member states had urban departments in their develop co-operation organizations.  During the conference they came together and decided that they should promote an integrated urban approach for development cooperation from the EC.  The result of this was an initiative to develop a policy together with guidelines on how it could be implemented.

Which should come first?   The urban development policy or the guidelines?  The practicalities dictated that it was better to first develop draft guidelines.  A team of development institutions were commissioned to develop the outline.  These included Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, in Netherlands, the Development Planning Unit in United Kingdom and  HDM at Lund University in Sweden.  I was  the  team leader,  which is why I have kept an interest in their progress.

Integrated urban development is very important.  Everyone recognises this, but it is difficult to implement.   European development aid has tended to be sectoral.  It is easier to manage large infrastructure projects than complicated integrated programmes.   The challenge was to try to develop a framework to encourage integrated “urban” approaches where synergies could be developed and conflicts minimised.  The approach had to be simple enough to be understandable, had to make sense and also had to fit with the procedures of European development aid.  Not an easy assignment!   Interestingly, during development of the guidelines it turned out that an overlapping work was being written on  urban environment.  It was agreed to integrate the two  – a rare case of  synergistic thinking and flexibility!

The draft guidelines went through a number of formats, were tested in regional workshops and in  EC projects.  They were finally made available in 2001 on  World Habitat Day.

cover of EC guidelines 2001Cover of 2001 version of the guidelines

Reorganization within EC meant that the guidelines disappeared from view.   They were re-discovered and  updated as Consultative Guidelines for Sustainable Urban Development Cooperation.  These were introduced for discussion early 2012.    The current status is no clear.   They are updated but are largely the same as the original work.  If you want to look at them they  are available for download via the above link.

I think that the guidelines still provide a very useful guide to thinking through integrated approaches, especially linking planning, infrastructure development  and governance.  They also show how to connect  these to the project cycle management used by EC and other agencies for development projects.

If you find this publication useful, or have any comments, please let me know – but  also it is very important to give feedback to EC on their Capacity 4 Dev page.  A direct link is  here.

7S diagramKey diagram of the guidelines

World Urban Forum 2014, Medellin – some reflections

 

Medellin 2014  informal barrio upgraded with improved transportation and art

Medellin 2014 informal barrio upgraded with improved transportation and art

I was asked to add some links to a posting I made at the end of the World Urban Forum (WUF)  in 2012 in Naples.  This was about an inspiring acceptance speech from the former mayor of Medellin, and my hope that the video would be available on YouTube.   Well it is (see the end of this post), and it also reminded me that neither had I updated the site nor commented on impressions from Medellin where the 2014 Urban Forum was held.

After some months the contents of individual presentations and sessions loose the paradigm changing impression that they leave you with at the time.  The impact of the snatched conversations, the bombardment of stalls, posters, videos, leaflets, books, DVDs and dongles fades.  The sessions of the development glitterati were interesting, but?  Apart from a refreshed network – what are you left with?

For me, the biggest impact was from the city itself and the transformations that had been achieved. To be left with inspiration rather than cynicism is a major plus.  The use of a high quality metro and bus rapid transit system linked by cable cars to informal areas on the surrounding hill sides is impressive.  The cleanliness of the system – platforms are dusted and polished – and the existence of a “metro culture” where users seem to use the facilities with respect gives food for thought.

 

The video that first impressed me?

 

The recent presentation in Medellin as part of  IHS alumni award ceremony:

 

More images of the transportation innovations linked to upgrading the informal areas of the city.   For further information, click the images:

 

For research on the impact of the Metrocables, see Dávila, Julio D. and Daste, D., 2011. Poverty, participation and aerial cable-cars: A case study of Medellín. In 12th Naerus Annual Conference, Madrid 2011. N-Aerus. Available at: https://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/dpu/metrocables/dissemination/Davila-Daste-Naerus-2011.pdf

 

YouTube and Google Earth: Ghost cities

The continued improvement of Google Earth coupled with access to video on Youtube has provided some great insights into urban development dynamics.

China’s ghost cities reviews what happens when investment does not link closely to the market.  There are many other videos on YouTube with similar themes.

For IoS :

http://youtu.be/pbDeS_mXMnM

Rotterdam

The Erasmus Bridge Rotterdam