Modelamiento del proyecto “Edificio Huertas” en Revit

On a formal level, participatory processes and games seem to share several similarities, both on the design process, where the issues is defined, rules and goals are set and the setting is selected; as well as on the employment of specific mechanics or tools, which in both cases can be media independent and cross-media.

But despite the significant similarities, when it comes to the wider context in which games and participation are being employed there are some basic differences. Most importantly, the participatory planning processes clearly have a social goal and they form part of a much larger and complex planning agenda, whereas games are commercial products with a very contained development process. Additionally, in drawing an analogy between game mechanics and participatory methods, we must also acknowledge the limitations of games, particularly when used in the highly charged political context of planning. Game mechanics are tools of indirect control not only over the player’s actions, but mostly over their experience[51]. Games are ‘formatted spaces of participation’ [52] in that they are technologically, socially and economically pre- structured interfaces through which citizens can perform

certain actions. That means that while the experience of participatory processes can become more accessible for the hard-to-reach groups and can help participants articulate their visions and desires, it will always be in the format dictated by the game itself. The tension between the given structure of the participatory process and its constant redefinition by the practice of participation will remain. Moreover, as the political level reaches to stay in control of the planning process, and game development is a lengthy and costly process, the motivation of the commissioning stakeholder should be constantly scrutinized. The role of intermediary organisations, such as the District Service and LAG in Vienna or the Wijkmanagement teams in Belgium, is instrumental in this, as they need to play a facilitating role for the citizens but they are also in constant exchange with the government. In order to maintain their own legitimacy, they have to accept the existing power dynamics between government, interest groups and citizens. However they are responsible for carrying out the full projects, so their role in participatory processes is necessary in order to manage resources, engage other stakeholders and encourage them to take ownership of specific parts of the project [53]. These authors argue that all people involved in communicative planning should focus on the improvement of the participatory process itself and embrace the inherent and thus unresolvable systemic contradictions within and

around collaborative practices. This can practically be done by renegotiating the existing incentive structures, acknowledging the importance of leader and sponsors in getting the processes started and their abilities to engage others. Very practical things such as meetings summaries, invited experts, proper information and dedicated staff that takes care of these necessities is also mentioned as a significant success factor.

Thus keeping the significance of the political context in mind and acknowledging the systemic constraints imposed on participatory planning processes, should not hinder the lessons that coordinators of such processes can learn from game design. On an operational level, games and participation share many characteristics, and transferring some principles of game design can lead to participatory processes that are more participant- oriented, engaging and yet also more productive in terms of their output.

REFERENCES

[1] E., Gordon, J. Balwin-Philippi, and M., Balestra, “Why We Engage - How theories of human behavior contribute to our understanding of civic engagement in a digital era.”[Online]

Available at:

https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2013/why_we_engag e. [Accessed: 15 03 2015], 2013.

[2] M. Parés and H., March, Short Guides for Citizen Participation,

3: Guide to Evaluating Participatory Processes, Barcelona: Department of Governance and Institutional Relations, 2013. [3] C., Leadbeater, We-Think. Mass Innovation, Not Mass

Production. London: Profile Books, 2008.

[4] P., Lévy, Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in

Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 1999.

[5] A. Bruns, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Land, 2008. [6] D., Gillmor, We the Media: Grassroots by the People, for the

People. Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media, 2006.

[7] M., Castells, “The informational city is a dual city: can it be reversed”, in: High Technology and Low-Income Communities: Prospects for the Positive Use of Advanced Information Technology, D. A. Schön, B. Sanyal & W. J. Mitchell, eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999, pp. 27-42.

[8] T., Terranova, “Free Labor: producing culture for the digital economy”. Social Text,18(2), 2000, pp. 33-58.

[9] G., Agamben, State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

[10] S., Sassen, The Global City: New York, London and Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

[11] E., Muller. “Formatted Spaces of Participation: Interactive television and the changing relationship between production

and consumption”. in: Digital Material - Tracing New Media in

Everyday Life and Technology.M. v. d. Boomen, et al. eds. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, pp. 49-63. [12] S. R., Arnstein, “A ladder of citizen participation”. Journal of

the American Institute of Planning, vol. 35, 1969, pp. 216-224. [13] S. S., Fainstein, “New directions in planning theory”. Urban

Affairs Review, vol.35(4), 2000, pp. 451-478.

[14] Hoch, C., “Doing Good and being Right - The pragmatic connection in planning theory”. American Planning Association Journal, vol. 4(1), 1984, pp. 335-345.

[15] K. Vaajakallio, and T., Mattelmäki, “Design games in codesign: as a tool, a mindset and a structure”. CoDesign,vol. 10(1), 2014, pp. 63-77.

[16] E., Gordon, J. Balwin-Philippi, and M., Balestra, ibid. [17] A., Van Herzele, “Local knowledge in action: Valuing

nonprofessional reasoning in the planning process”. Journal of Planning Education and Research,vol. 24(2), 2004, pp. 197- 212.

[18] D. C., Brabham, “Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects”. Planning Theory, vol. 8(3), 2009, pp. 242-262.

[19] J., Coburn, “Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making: Improving urban planning for communities at risk”. Journal of Planning Education and Research,vol. 22(4), 2003, pp. 420-433.

[20] K., Kapp,. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publisher, 2012

[21] O. Devisch, J. Diephuis, K. Gugerell, M. Berger, M.a Jauschneg, T. Constantinescu, and C. Ampatzidou, “Game Mechanics for Civic Participation in Digitized Cities.” unpublished

[22] J., Huizinga, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon Press, 1955.

[23] R., Caillois, Man, Play and Games. London: Thames and Hudson, 1962.

[24] D., Parlett, The Oxford History of Board Games. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

[25] C., Abt, Serious Games.New York: Viking Press, 1969. [26] J., Juul, Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and

Fictional Worlds.1rst paperback edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.

[27] E. Adams, and J., Dormans, Game Mechanics, Advanced Game Design.Berkeley: New Riders Games, 2012.

[28] K., Salen, and E., Zimmerman, Rules of Play. Game Design Fundamentals.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.

[29] M., Sicart, “Defining game mechanics”. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, vol. 8(2), 2008.

[30] J., Schell, The Art of Game Design - A Book of Lenses. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2008. [31] E. Adams, and J., Dormans, ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] D., Cook, “What are Game Mechanics?”, [Online] Available at: http://www.lostgarden.com/2006/10/what-are- game-mechanics.html

[Accessed 11 07 2015], 2006.

[34] R., Hunicke, M. Leblanc, and R., Zubek, MDA: A fromal approach to Game Design and Game Research.sl, AAAI Press, 2004.

[35] A., Järvinen, Games without Frontiers: Theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design. Tampere: Tampere University Press, 2008.

[36] R., Hunicke, M. Leblanc, and R., Zubek, ibid.

[37] Bagdeville, “Game Mechanics”. [Online]

Available at:

https://badgeville.com/wiki/Game_Mechanics#Achievements [Accessed 25 05 2015], sd.

[38] K., Salen, and E., Zimmerman, ibid.

[39] J., Juul, “The Open and the Closed: Games of Emergence and Games of Progression”, in Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference Proceedings, Frans Mäyrä ed., Tampere: Tampere University Press, 2002, pp. 323-329.

[40] Y., Vogiazou, Design for Emergence Collaborative Social Play with Online and Location-based Media. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2007.

[41] J., Juul, 2002, ibid. [42] Y., Vogiazou, ibid.

[43] G., Verstraete, “The Politics of Convergence - on the role of the mobile object”. Cultural Studies,vol. 25(4-5), 2011, pp. 534- 547.

[44] E., Zimmerman, “Play as Research: The Iterative Design

Process”. [Online]

Available at:

http://www.ericzimmerman.com/texts/Iterative_Design.html [Accessed 13 07 2015]. 2003.

[45] Y., Vogiazou, ibid. [46] M., Sicart, ibid.

[47] J., Schell, ibid.

[48] E. Adams, and J., Dormans, ibid.

[49] R., Hunicke, M. Leblanc, and R., Zubek, ibid. [50] J., Juul, 2002, ibid.

[51] J., Schell, ibid. [52] E., Muller., ibid.

[53] E. J. Innes, and D. E., Booher, Planning with Complexity- An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Londo & New York: Routledge, 2010.