The Urban Space Central 15 project is an extensive urban development initiative aimed at transforming and enhancing the neighborhood located within the boundaries of Märzstraße to the north, Mariahilfer Straße/Linzer Straße to the south, Neubaugürtel to the east, and Sturzgasse to the west. While primarily situated in the 15th district, it encompasses areas of the 6th, 7th, and 14th districts as well.
The key focus of this project is to incorporate the outcomes of an extensive planning and participatory process into a sustainable neighborhood development concept. This concept aims to address the unique needs of the area while establishing frameworks for future developments that both preserve and enhance the existing quality of life.
Critical objectives include the creation and enhancement of green spaces, the reduction of barriers posed by railway infrastructure, and contributions to climate protection and adaptation strategies. Additionally, the project will explore potential perspectives for the area between Felberstraße and Westbahn.
The holistic approach taken by the Urban Space Central 15 project underscores its commitment to fostering a more sustainable, inclusive, and environmentally conscious urban landscape. please proofread!
©tbc
https://meinlebenim15.at/
© GB*/Daniel Dutkowski, denn nun ist der Stadtraum belebt/bunter.
Involved Actors & Resources
Yes / No | No, at least not directly |
If yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the governmental body Yes / NoYes | If yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the public actors and describe which sector and explain their role, briefly | - LOKALE AGENDA RUDOLFSHEIM-FÜNFHAUS consisting of Dialog Plus, Caritas Stadtteilarbeit und Gegenblick (commissioned by City of Vienna)
- Urban renewal office (commissioned by City of Vienna)
|
| Private for-profit actors: |
Yes / No| If yes, explain by using types of private for-profit actors such as public engagement consultants, companies etc. | N/A |
| Private not-for-profit actors: |
Yes / NoYes | If yes, explain by using types of private not-for-profit actors such as associations, informal networks etc. | - Association (Lokale Agenda)
|
+ Arbeitsgruppe - and Arbeitsgruppe (ARGE) consisting of non-for-profit and (for-profit)
- SMEArbeitsgruppe (ARGE) consisting of non-for-profit housing developer
|
| Civic actors: |
Yes / NoYesIf yes, explain on the heterogeneity of the participants with respect to gender, age, educational qualification, place of residence etc. | | All residents living in the 15th district |
/ | (Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus) |
| Other actors: |
Yes / NoYes | If yes, explain | Public actors, for-profit, non-for-profit in joint alliances for small-scale |
neighbourhood Yes;
| neighborhood projects |
| Funding/Financial resources for the particular best practice example: |
If yes, specify e.g. amount of funding/year | 100k€/ year for the duration of 4 yrs. app. 1.8 |
mio Mio. EUR for the duration of 3 yrs. |
and the source(s) of funding (if more sources, please specify)| Specification | a) 50% funded by the district, 50% by the Municipality.
|
B
Type of Governance
Participatory process: Yes / No| Yes | process: Yes / NoYes | Other forms: if yes, specify; | | Top-down | No |
| Bottom-up | Yes |
Others: if yes, specify;| , bottom-up participatory process |
Through alliances and collaboration for small-scale projects; or, as first initiative to get started larger (municipality-run) participation and/or urban |
delevopment
| Cost reimbursement (e.g., for public transport, compensation of working hours): |
if yes, describeNo | Provision of care services: if yes, describe| | No |
| Provision of mediators (e.g., linguistic, cultural): |
if yes, describe/specify | Yes; provided by the multi-disciplinary teams in a) and b) |
| Frequency of activities within the best practice: How often and for how long did participants involve in best practice (e.g., in general friendly towards employed people or people with care responsibilities)? | Unknown |
| External inclusion referring to who is invited or allowed to take part from the invitation |
= | (in an ideal situation) | Everybody from the 15th district |
| Internal inclusion referring to the participation of all participants within |
= | , i.e. the real situation | Unknown |
| Internal exclusion referring to certain participants who are overly dominant | Unknown |
| Vulnerable groups were specified in the designed plan of the best practice: |
Yes / No| If yes: Who in particular, e.g. migrants, people in precarious work-situation etc.? Specify. | N/A |
| If yes: Special attention towards young people, women, elderly people: Yes / No | N/A |
| If yes, specify. | N/A |
| Did vulnerable groups participate in the best practice: |
Yes / No| If yes: Who in particular, e.g. migrants, people in precarious work-situation etc.? Specify. | Unknown |
| If yes: Participation of young people, women, elderly people: Yes / No | Unknown |
| If yes, specify. | N/A |
| If yes: Did special training and empowerment activities support these groups within the participatory process? | Unknown |
Ways of Communication
| Website and social media postings: |
Yes / No | Yes |
| Information documents distributed in the post box: |
yes/no | Unknown |
| Information documents distributed on streets and public spaces (during events): |
Yes / No | Depends |
| Press releases in “traditional” public media (e.g. linear TV, daily newspapers etc.): |
Yes / No | Yes |
| Special-target activities (e.g. through gate-openers, community workers etc.): |
Yes / No
Monitoring
| Monitoring process on the best practice available? |
Yes / No for a) and b); however: for | . However, for internal purpose |
, onlyIf yes: Continuous | only. Yearly and at the end of funding period. |
| Is there continuous information on monitoring results provided to the participants: |
Yes / No| If yes: How? How often? | Yearly + at the end of funding period |
| Integration of participants in the monitoring |
process? Yes / NoNo | If yes: Did they have the opportunity to suggest changes to the Yes / No | No |
| Continuous information on monitoring results provided to network partners (public and non-public actors) |
?No | If yes: How? How often
Impact Assessment and/or Evaluation
| Did an impact assessment (e.g., achievements, challenges) or evaluation (standardized success measurement) take place: |
Yes / No| If yes: Who evaluates? What? How? At which point of process? | Unknown |
Citizen Empowerment & Representation
| Structured Decision-Making: | No |
| Explanation of objectives and methods, at the beginning of the process? |
Yes / No | No |
| Do the participants make final decisions? | Unknown |
If no: | Why not? Who decides instead? | Alliance of municipal |
dep. + | department, urban renewal office |
+ | and other actors involved |
| If yes: What kinds of decisions? | Unknown |
If yes: | Is there a veto right by the citizens (i.e. if they are against a specific option this is not implemented?)? |
Yes / No | No |
| At the end of the participation process: Final document on the decisions that were taken? |
Yes / NoIf yes: | Is the publication of this document available? |
Yes / NoIf yes: | Was the publication of this document sent to participants and/or affected community? |
Yes / No
| Clear definition and communication of mutual commitments, decision-making roles and any limits on the decisions? |
Yes / No | No |
| Are specific tools available to participants (e.g., regular meetings or |
trainings| If yes: What kind of? | N/A |
If not: Why not? | N/A |
| Integration of empowerment tools in multi-level-governance-system? | Unknown |
| If yes: Where [in the sense of at which level in the multilevel-governance (vertical)]? | N/A |
| If yes: For whom in particular (horizontal)? | N/A |
If not: Why not? What results from that (e.g., disconnection etc.) | N/A
Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups
| Which groups are involved at which stage of the participatory process? | Unknown |
| What are the tasks of the groups? Describe for each group. | Unknown |
| Which groups are underrepresented among the participants? Why? | Unknown |
