LED2LEAP 2020 - Freising Team 5

From Ledwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

>>>back to working groups overview

Area Freising
Place Freising and Munich Airport area
Country Germany
Topics Landscape Democracy
Author(s) Aida Kadic,Krishna Ambali Parambil,Imad Eddine Lallouche and Zareen Kashfee Prianka
Freising 06.JPG

Landscape Democracy Rationale

  • This community context is relevant from a landscape democracy perspective because it is situated in a developed nation which is governed by democratic system and preserve the right of freedom of speech.It is also a basic social unit where there are many common aspects or attributes that makes it easier and effective context to have analysis.We can find out information about a particular space,thoughts and needs about specific things.
What is your hypothesis considering the landscape democracy challenges?

Location and scope

Loading map...

Phase A: Mapping our Community

The cityscape of Freising is shaped by the location of the city on the tertiary edge of the hill, to the south is Munich Gravel Plain, and extends north to the Tertiary hill country. The following striking elements shape the cityscape:

  • The Domberg and the Weihenstephaner Berewry
  • The green slopes
  • The rivers
  • Munich airport.
  • The old town and the historic city and Town centers
  • Neustift, Weihenstephan or Vötting
  • the prince-bishop's residence
  • A moderately growing population.
  • Lower rate of unemployment and a thriving prospect.
  • Multi-sources of income for the landkreis of freising.
  • Breathtaking forests.
  • Rich culture and diverse ethnicity.
  • a beacon for scientists and future brewers.
  • Reminiscent city with many historical landmarks
  • Location

    Location

  • Spatial Characteristics

    Spatial Characteristics

  • Socio Economic Characteristics

    Socio Economic Characteristics

.

Groups of actors and stakeholders in our community

  • Which groups/sub-communities are there? What are their needs and aspirations with regard to the landscape? Which groups are more visible? Which are less visible? What do we not know? (max 200 signs)
  1. Primary external stakeholders(Government bodies, moderators and decision makers)
  2. Private external stakeholders(Banks, Hotels, Private health institutions....)
  3. Community local stakeholders(landlords, farmers, investors,scientists......)
  4. Non profit internal stakeholders( churches, sports teams, parents groups....)
  5. Individuals(children, parents, disabled people....)
  • the list of the Groups that are more visible includes( Officials, politicians, farmers, scientists,environment department representatives)
  • Groups that are visible ( Investors,landlords, university, manufacturing organizations..)
  • the remaining groups are less visible
  • the needs and aspirations of the community: sustainable green city, reducing pollution and traffic jam, global warming issue and reducing co2 emission, airport noise, against the 3rd runway project of the airport.
  1. What we do not know:
  • The strategies that has already been adopted to counteract wicked problems and the district's regulations.
  • We also need to interact directly with people in order to have an in-depth understanding of the community
  • Community groups

    Community groups

  • Community Hierarchy

    Community Hierarchy

  • Targets of the community

    Targets of the community

Relationships between our actors and groups

  • How to describe the power relationship between the groups?
  • Which groups may have shared interests and which are these?
  • The council and the committees including the district administrative officer are the decision makers.
  • the decision makers are elected by citizens.
  • All community members have shared interests, skills and common challenges.
  • Government officials and airport representatives have a common vision.
  • Community members have a conflicting interests with local officials.


  • Relationship between groups

    Relationship between groups

  • Findings

    Findings

  • Stories of the community

    Stories of the community

Summary of our learnings from the transnational discussion panel on April 22

  • Different approaches about storytelling
  • Some groups had a smaller scale focus areas but more detailed analysis.
  • We loved the presentation styles from the other groups and we got inspired with new ideas.
  • Other value schemes: any surprises?
  • We had a lot of information so the comment was to highlight the most important points.

Theory reflection

  • From The Right to The Landscape- we have encounter the idea of landscape having different meaning to different person. It is not only a goal or movement but it is also a context of combining socio-cultural and natural aspects with the spiritual prerequisite of individual and resulting into the both physical and spiritual welfare of them. It is formed by negotiating and influencing the public’s need and it is a combination of work of nature and man.
  • From The Just City Essays- this material reflected that there is no boundary between people,and between landscapes.We should works as a whole with few philosophies such as equity, choice, access, innovation, ownership, etc. it makes us aware of that everyone’s decision is important as well as the democratic parties and we should not have any border or discrimination while designing as the place belong to the individual living there. So every voice should be count to make something livable.
  • From the Storytelling, a model of and a model for planning- we have come across the process of how stories grow together and nurture the landscape planning and development. It shows how the old one follows the present and then the future like a chain of cycle and it is a process of time and hardship with commitment of previous stories. It reflected how a landscape can develop keeping the past essence and thinking of the future along with the needs of the present.

References

  • References

https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/498/1/06_09_rodier_et_al_urban.pdf, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/dfa1ad422e8e49cf8293a7d0082d5d81 https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-gi-Braustuberl_WeihenstephanFreising_Upper_Bavaria_Bavaria.html https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lpQqRCZyAuTNvLm7RYwYWcy2L4TqW-nEf_Tcykfb04Q/edit?ts=5e9c5e36 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/dfa1ad422e8e49cf8293a7d0082d5d81 https://weatherspark.com/y/70416/Average-Weather-in-Freising-Germany-Year-Round https://www.kreis-freising.de/englisch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freising_(district) http://www.icos-infrastruktur.de/en/icos-d/jahrestreffen/2019-freising/ https://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory https://www.freising.de/media/user_upload/61_Stadtplanung_Umwelt/6110_pdf-Files/STEP/stadtentwicklungsplan-step-2030-freising http://neighborhoodeconomics.org/community-stakeholders/

Phase B: Democratic Landscape Analysis and Assessment

* template coming

Phase C: Collaborative Visioning and Goal Setting

* template coming

Phase D: Collaborative Design, Transformation and Planning

* template coming

Phase E: Collaborative Design, Transformation and Planning

* template coming

= Phase E: Collaborative Evaluation and Future Agendas * template coming

Process Reflection

  • Reflect in your intercultural and interdisciplinary team on the outcomes of your study
  • Which limitations were you facing?
  • What have you learnt from each other?
  • What would you do differently next time?
  • You can also use diagrams/visuals
  • 250 words text
Retrieved from "https://ledwiki.hfwu.de/index.php?title=LED2LEAP_2020_-_Freising_Team_5&oldid=11480"