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.
Image Added
© GB*/Daniel Dutkowski, denn nun ist der Stadtraum belebt/bunter.
Involved Actors & Resources
| Governmental body: | No, at least not directly |
| Other public actors: | - 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: | No |
| Private not-for-profit actors: | - Association (Lokale Agenda) and Arbeitsgruppe (ARGE) consisting of non-for-profit and (for-profit)
- SMEArbeitsgruppe (ARGE) consisting of non-for-profit housing developer
|
| Civic actors: | All residents living in the 15th district (Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus) |
| Other actors: | Public actors, for-profit, non-for-profit in joint alliances for small-scale neighborhood projects |
| Funding/Financial resources for the particular best practice example: | 100k€/ year for the duration of 4 yrs. app. 1.8 Mio. EUR for the duration of 3 yrs. |
| Specification | a) 50% funded by the district, 50% by the Municipality.
b) through MA25 |
Deliberative, 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 development process |
Image Removed
https://meinlebenim15.at/
https://www.mitte15.at/
Involved Actors & Resources
| Governmental body: yes/no | yes |
| if yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the governmental body; | district management/district mayors |
| Other public actors: yes/no | yes |
if yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the public actors and
describe which sector and explain their role, briefly: | WiG Wiener Gesundheitsförderung (i.e., Viennese Health Promotion) (program management), Caritas Neighborhood and District Work (subcontractor); cooperation partners: district management (i.e., Bezirksvorstehung) and Area Renewal Offices (i.e., Gebietsbetreuung) of involved districts, wohnpartner (i.e. community work in social housing ), Municipal Department 17 (Integration and Diversity), police, queraum (distribution of fundings mentioned in 1.3.7) |
| Private for-profit actors: yes/no | yes |
If yes, explain by using types of private for-profit actors such as
public engagement consultants, companies etc.; | cooperation partners for location of traveling exibithion: shopping centers (SCN, Stadion Center), grocery market (Meiselmarkt), hospital (UKH Lorenz Böhler) |
| Private not-for profit actors: yes/no | yes |
If yes, explain by using types of private not-for-profit actors such
as associations, informal networks etc.; | Cooperation partners: Juvivo/Kinderfreunde (associations for children and youth work), Mobility Scouts (association for mobile care for disabled people), Das Band (asscociation for supported employment and housing), Piramidops (social counseling for migrant women) |
| Civic actors: yes/no | yes |
if yes, explain on the heterogeneity of the participants with respect
to gender, age, educational qualification, place of residence etc. | gender: about 2/3 of the participants were identified as women, 1/3 had migrant background;
age: about 1/2 of the participatns were adults of working age (20-59 years), 1/3 were elderly people (60+) and 1/5 were kids and teenagers;
place of residence: all people living in the neighborhoods of 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 21st, 22nd district in Vienna
educational qualification: n.a. |
| Other actors: yes/no | no |
| If yes, explain | n.a. |
| Funding/financial resources for the particular best practice example | WiG-Grätzel (i.e., neighborhood) initiative and cooperation initiatives (funding amount of €300 and €3,000 respectively) were used as an instrument for residents and facilities in the districts to implement smaller health-promoting measures; |
| If yes, specify e.g. amount of funding/year | the total funding of the programme was €360.000 for 3 years, each district had a certain ammount of funding (€38.025 personnel costs and €1.975 material costs) |
| Participatory process: yes/no | yes |
| Deliberative process: yes/no | no |
| Other forms: if yes, specify; | n.a. |
| Top-down | no |
| Bottom-up | no |
| Others: if yes, specify | mixture of bottom-up and top-down. The workshops were created based on a bottom-up survey of demand stakeholder workshop |
Specifal Features of the Best Practice which explain | Cost reimbursement (e.g., for public transport, compensation of |
if yes, describeno care services: if yes, describeno | Provision of | mediators (e.g., linguistic, cultural): |
if yes, describe/specifyyes, multipliers belonging to different target groups, linguistic translation in Turkish and Arabic during the workshops | 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 |
invovle | involve in best practice (e.g., in general friendly towards employed people or people with care responsibilities)? |
2017: 18 neighborhood cafes, 14 workshops, accompanying 2 health-promotiong activities"
2018: 6 neighbourhood cafes, 20 workshops, 2 impuls workshops for Bedarfserhebung, 1 accompanied neighborhood initiative (i.e., "Grätzelinitiative"), 1 neighbourhood forum (i.e., Grätzelforum)
2019: 8 neighborhood cafes, 10 workshops, 1 accompanied neighborhood initiative (i.e., "Grätzelinitiative") 1 neighborhood forum (i.e., Grätzelforum) |
| External inclusion referring to who is invited or allowed to take part from the invitation |
= all people living in the neighborhoods of 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 21st, 22nd districts with the focus on older people in the selected neighborhoods.| ) | Everybody from the 15th district |
| Internal inclusion referring to the participation of all participants within |
= real situationrefered to in 1.3.5. | | , i.e. the real situation | Unknown |
| Internal exclusion |
Internal inclusion | referring to certain participants who are overly |
dominantabout 1/2 of the participatns were adults of working age| dominant | Unknown |
| Vulnerable groups were specified in the |
designated | designed plan of the best practice: |
yes/noyes | | If yes: Who in particular, e.g., migrants, people in precarious work-situation, etc.? Specify. | elderly. Migrants, people with disabilities, former homeless |
| If yes: Special attention towards young people, women, elderly people: yes/no | yes |
If yes, specify. | all people living in the neighborhoods of 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 21st, 22nd districts focusing on older people in the neighborhood. |
| Did vulnerable groups participate in the best practice: |
yes/noyes | | If yes: Who in particular, e.g., migrants, people in precarious work-situation, etc.? Specify. | migrants, people with disabilities, elderly with dementia, former homeless people |
| If yes: Special attention towards young people, women, elderly people: yes/no | yes |
| If yes, specify. | young people, elderly |
| If yes: Did special training and empowerment activities support these groups within the participatory process? | An intergenerational approach (e.g., using different activation methods) should embrace the diversity of different people and groups approach in a neighborhood. |
Public Information Activities on the Best Practice
| Information documents (e.g., flyer, brochures, invitation letters): |
yes/noFlyer, public notices, direct mailing (with invitaiton letters to neighbourhood meetings, workshops and traveling exhibition), direct conversations with residents at events, phone calls | | sometimes for specific initiatives |
| Multiple languages available: | Depends |
| Non |
| If yes: multiple langugages available: yes/no | yes, at certain workshops (Turkish/Arabic) |
If yes: non| -technical language used: |
yes/nono media (e.g., Facebook, Instragram, WhatsApp, websites, blog): yes/nono | | If yes: please specify | n.a. |
Others (1-2 sentences) | n.a.
Ways of Communication
| Website and social media postings: |
yes/nono| Yes |
| Information documents distributed in the post box: |
yes/noyes| Unknown |
| Information documents distributed on streets and |
pulic | public spaces (during events): |
yes/noyes "traditional" | “traditional” public media (e.g. |
, | linear TV, daily newspapers etc.): |
yes/nono| Yes |
| Special-target activities (e.g. |
, communiy yes/noyes
Monitoring
| Monitoring process on the best practice available |
: yes/noyes | If yes: Continuous | ? | Yes. However, for internal purpose 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? | internal and external interim and end reports |
yes | | Integration of participants in the monitoring |
proces: yes/noyes | If yes: Did they have the opportunity to suggest changes to the process: yes/no | no |
| Continuous information on monitoring results provided to network partners (public and non-public actors) |
: yes/noyes
Impact Assessment and/or Evaluation
| Did an impact assessment (e.g., achievements, challenges) or evaluation (standardized success measurement) take place: |
yes/noyes | | If yes: who evalueates? What? How? A which point of process? | activity and participation monitoring (interim and end report) by
an external evalutation expert (prosect reserach & solution) |
Citizen Empowerment & Representation
| Structured Decision-Making: | No |
| Explanation of objectives and methods, at the beginning of the process |
: yes/noyes participatns | participants make final decisions? |
yesIf no: If yes: | Why not? Who decides instead? |
n.a. | | If yes: What kind of decisions? | Decisions during the so called "Grätzlforum", an event where participants, politicians, community workers and other stakeholders worked on ideas for health and neighbourhood initiatiatives |
| Alliance of municipal department, urban renewal office and other actors involved |
| Is there a veto right by the citizens (i.e. |
, | if they are against a specific option this is not implemented?) |
: yes/nono| ? | No |
| At the end of the participation process: Final document on the |
decision | decisions that were taken? | Yes |
/noyes, a protocoll and report | If yes: | publication of this document available? | Yes |
/nono | If yes: |
| Was the publication of this document sent to participants and/or affected community? |
Yes/noyes
Citizens' Empowerment contacts to the district mayors and stakeholder who could help implementing a health-promoting neighborhood initiative after the programme ended| Clear definition and communication of mutual commitments, decision-making |
and | roles and any limits on the decisions |
: yes/noyes| ? | No |
| Are specific tools available to participants (e.g., regular meetings or |
trainings: yes/noyes | If yes: What kind of Support of participants through project team and multipliers during generation (e.g., information on funding possibilities and networking with local stakeholders) and implementation (e.g., through logistics, markting) of ideas for health-promoting neighborhood initiatives | If not: Why not? | n.a. |
| Integration of empowerment tools in multi-level- |
governancy yes, fostering the interchange between citizens and the district mayor by organising a "Grätzlforum" - a forum where participants, community workers, district politics and other stakeholders met | | If yes: Where (in the sense of which level in the multilevel-governance)? | district policy level |
| If yes: For whom in particular (horizontal)? | for fostering the exchange between participants and politics |
Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups
| round table discussion, generating and presenting ideas for health-focussed neighborhood initiatives, networking | | Which groups are involved |
in | at which stage of the participatory process |
participating groups (refered to in 1.6.6.) were involved in all stages (refered to in 1.5.4.) of the participatory process | ? | Unknown |
| What are the tasks of the groups? Describe for each group |
see 1.8.4.; also submitting and organising neighborhood initiatives was a task which was very accelerated| . | Unknown |
| Which groups are underrepresented among the participants? Why? |
male participants and more specifically migrant men; men are more difficult to reach with health promotion projetcs
