PLAY THE CITY BUIKSLOTERHAM Developing a Common Agenda for a Circular BuiksloterhamMichiel de Lange & Martijn de Waal, January 2016

2

COLOPHON

The City Innovation Game was developed by Play the City in close cooperation with The Hackable City, Pakhuis de Zwijger, Stadslab Buiksloterham and the Lectorate of Play and Civic Media from the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.

Play the City, http://www.playthecity.nl/Play the City is a consultancy practice that designs physical games as a method for collaborative decision making and conflict resolution. We tailor our games according to the questions of our clients. These can relate to large urban projects, refugee camps, violence prevention and other multi-stakeholder challenges societies face.We use gaming as a problem-solving method bringing top down decision makers together with bottom up stakeholders. In the accessible environment of games, freed from the jargons, various ideas, plans and projects meet, conflict and collaborate towards negotiated outcomes.Ekim Tan, Richard Pelgrim, Janine Loubser, Mariana Fabris, Maxim Amasov, Arecontributors

Hackable City, http://thehackablecity.nl/The Hackable City is an on-going research project on the role of digital media in the process of citymaking that has resulted from a cooperation between One Architecture and The Mobile City Foundation. Current project partners are The University of Amsterdam, Utrecht University, The lectorate Play & Civic Media of the Amsterdam Univer-sity of Applied Sciences, Pakhuis de Zwijger, The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and Stadslab Buiksloterham.

The goal of this research project is to explore the opportunities as well as challenges of the rise of new media technologies for an open, democratic process of collaborative citymaking. How can citizens, design professionals, local government institutions and others employ digital media platforms in collaborative processes of urban plan-ning, management and social organization, to contribute to a liveable and resilient city, with a strong social fabric?Matthijs Bouw, Tara Karpinski, Froukje van de Klundert, Michiel de Lange, Martijn de Waal

Stadslab Buiksloterham, http://buiksloterham.nl/The area development of Buiksloterham is characterized by an open zoning plan, many opportunities for self-build-ing, a cooperative process and room for experimentation. Future residents, together with creative professionals, already launched several initiatives to help ensure that Buiksloterham will become a circular neighborhood. Stad-slab BSH offers a platform for all initiatives. Together with stakeholders a social and cultural agenda for the area is being developed to ensure the (self-) organizing capacity of Circular Buiksloterham .

Pakhuis de Zwijger, https://dezwijger.nl/Pakhuis de Zwijger is a unique cultural organisation which opened its doors in 2006 and grew out to be an in-dependent platform for and by the city of Amsterdam and her inhabitants. The role of a city in the omnipresent transition to a sustainable society is complex. The creative and innovative approach to related issues has become Pakhuis de Zwijger’s trademark. Under the name of New Amsterdam – City in Transition Pakhuis de Zwijger orga-nises events about the urgent and complex urban challenges of today.

Lectorate of Play and Civic Media / Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, http://www.hva.nl/onderzoek/hva-onderzoek/kenniscentra/lectoraten/item/lectoraat-play-and-civic-me-dia.htmlThe professorship Play and Civic Media of the Hogeschool van Amsterdam is researching the design and use of games and games for social innovation. We mainly focus on the use of applied games and game applications in which participation, social connectedness, group dynamics and empowerment are key.

3

4

On Thursday November 26, around thirty stakeholders involved in the (re)development of Buiksloterham (BSH) – a brownfield transformation and regeneration project in the northern part of Amsterdam – assembled in Pakhuis de Zwijger, to play the City Innovation Game Buiksloter-ham. In March 2014 many of these stakeholders signed the Manifesto for a Circular Buiksloterham, stating their commitment to developing Buiksloterham according to the principles of a ‘circular economy’.

The City Innovation Game is developed by Play the City in cooperation with The Hackable City, Pakhuis de Zwijger, and Stadslab Buiksloterham. The game is de-signed to help illustrate the ambitions of different parties involved in the development of Buiksloterham, including self-builders, commercial property developers, energy corporations, and the municipality. By making their plans tangible on the game board during different rounds of play, participants are encouraged to collaboratively brainstorm, network, exchange knowledge and form new alliances to realize these ambitions.

As Frank Alsema, the initiator of Stadslab Buiksloterham, said in the introduction of the game-session, ‘there is no circularity without cooperation’. The game invited stake-holders to get to know each other better, exchange in-formation and insights and learn from each other as well as about opportunities for collaboration, and address the complex challenges toward realizing their common goal: establishing a circular living- and working neighborhood.

The Hackable City-research team was present during the game and wrote up this report. The Hackable City re-search project explores the role of digital media technolo-gies and play in the process of citymaking. This role is not limited to the technologies only (machines or objects) but includes online social practices and institutional

arrangements. The analog board game City Innovation Game Buiksloterham does not use digital technologies, at least not yet (that might come later). Nonetheless, it is related to the principles of digital game culture, and con-nects these with city making. Serious or applied games are seen as productive new ways to engage people with a variety of issues, from healthcare to education to city making. As we shall see, there are various reasons why games are apt to bring together various stakeholders and makes complex urban futures debatable in a collective and political way.

This report consists of two parts. In chapter one we have summarized the main outcomes of the game. What are the main opportunities and challenges in developing Buiksloterham as a circular neighborhood? In chapter two we will analyze how the City Innovation Game as an instance of ‘Hackable City Making’ helped reveal these opportunities and challenges.

INTRODUCTION

5

We found that The City Innovation game led to three different discussions concerning the future development of Buiksloterham. The first is what we could call ‘agenda building’. Participants introduced their own goals and visions for Buiksloterham, and out of these, collective themes emerged. A second recurring issue during the game dealt with the context in which these goals are to be realized: to what extend does current regulation hin-der or stimulate the development of these goals?The third thread of discussion dealt with the How-ques-tion: How could the communal goals be realized? The focus in this discussion was not only on practical mat-ters, but also on the question of which party should take up which role in the realization of collective goals.

During the game players introduced a number of goals to be realized for Buiksloterham. Here is a brief overview:• One of the participants is planning the construction

of a communal solar panel roof on top of one of the big box DIY-stores in the area. Opportunities were explored with other players to realize this.

• Others argued that BSH would need systems to buf-fer energy in the area, for instance in car batteries, or by building parking garages out of brick-shaped batteries. How or by whom this was going to be organized remained an open question.

• Another participant expressed the wish to set up a Bio-refinery in BSH. To realize this, around 2400 ‘person-equivalents’ (approx. 1000-1200 households) need to be connected to a special pipe-system that allows for the separate collection of ‘grey’ and ‘black’ water. Again, opportunities were explored for col-laboration. Which developers would be interested in adjusting their sanitation systems so these could be connected to the bio-refinery. Participations also ex-changed knowledge about the costs of this (around € 2200 per household).

• Others briefly mentioned the wish to explore the communal exploitation of Geothermal Heating Instal-lations (Warmte-Koude Opslag / WKO). These installa-tions are complicated to set-up and to maintain them demands a high level of expertise.

• A few participants added a number of social issues on the agenda, most notably connecting BSH with the surrounding areas. Plans for the development of the Klaprozenweg , for instance, include only a limit-ed number of crossings from BSH to the neighboring quarters. Similar issues were raised about connec-tions with the Van der Pek-buurt. It was argued that perhaps sharing infrastructural services, such as a solar farm, could bring about a connection between these two neighborhoods. Lastly, the issue of livabil-ity was discussed. What can be done to make BSH a lively neighborhood, especially as there is no space for retail in the zoning plan.

• One last issue that was mentioned a few times was the need for more green areas and parks. Again, mainly expressed as a wish, with so far no concrete actions outside the Papaverpark.

All in all the game setting revealed a number of points concerning the further development of BSH. Some of these were expressed merely as wishes, without a concrete action plan. In other instances players were able to share knowledge on what it would take to realize these goals, and to connect to other players that could help them. there were also real players such as Amvest Waternet the theater initiators who shared their concrete agendas with the purpose of seeking real time partners No official research-agenda or manifesto was drawn up, yet the exchange of ideas did seem to confirm stakehold-ers’ commitments to the original Circular Manifesto and highlight and elaborate a number of aspects of it.

1 A COLLECTIVE AGENDA FOR BUIKSLOTERHAM

6

Legal & Regulatory ContextA second recurring theme in the discussions focused on regulations that –mostly – challenged the actualization of the communal agenda. One important discussion that emerged was whether and how regulation could contrib-ute to the realization of a circular economy. Discussions were staged about how to bend the existing rules which required updates for making a circular environment pos-sible. A key role was assigned to the ‘kavelpaspoort’ – a set of rules and guidelines for the development of a par-ticular lot. Some argued that for instance a regulation to build a double sanitation-system for both black and grey water could be an important stimulant to force develop-ers to cohere to circular economy principles. If a city is serious about endorsing the goals of a circular economy, it should use its legal frameworks to actualize it, was one of the arguments. For the development of social hous-ing projects such a regulation would even be required, as currently social housing companies are not allowed to invest outside of their core mission, which is the devel-opment of affordable houses, even if it is a contribution to a public cause such as the environment, and in long term also to the provision of affordable energy that would serve the socio-economic groups they are working for.

On the other hand, many pointed out that this could also hamper innovation. For instance, currently most lots are compulsory connected to the heating network of West-poort, a utility company that is partially owned by the city government. This is presented as a relatively environ-ment friendly system that makes use of the energy that emerges from one of the city’s waste incineration plants. The system is presented as relatively environmentally friendly, and makes use of heat that emerges from one of the city’s incineration plants. However many play-ers claimed that alternative systems could be far more efficient and environmental friendly. Current regulations leave some room for something like a ‘right to challenge’. If actors can prove that their own provision is indeed more energy-efficient than the one offered by Westpoort, they can be exempt from its use. However, this requires a certain amount of bureaucracy, and only a maximum of 10-15 percent of households can be exempted.

Others pointed out that some of the demands could actually hinder innovation, and do not leave enough room for out-of-the-box solutions. For instance, regulations on ‘Energy on Location’ (EPL) state particular require-ments for the production of energy used on a lot; but sometimes it can be more efficient to outsource energy production to solar panels or wind turbines on other locations. However, because the energy is no longer produced on location, although the arrangement might

be beneficial from an energy-saving perspective, it is not allowed. One developer said that he could mount a small number solar panels in his basement in order to both fulfill all of the municipality’s requirements, as well as optimize energy-production. It seems that these issues call for a way of formulation of requirements that are more focused on outcomes rather than on the means through which to use them, resonating with broader soci-etal discussions about the introduction of ‘doelwetgev-ing’, meaning that laws and regulation shouldn’t describe what somewhat should or should not do, but rather which goals are to be realized, leaving more room for in-novative applications.

On a different note, regulations or tenders that require high levels of commitment to circular goals, might be more demanding than national or European standards. Such demands may not uphold in court, in case develop-ers choose to challenge them. This is one of the reasons the national government has started a program centered on enabling rather than enforcing, for instance through the Green Deal Program, or City Deals.

The last point raised was the fact that laws and regula-tions were often unclear and prone to change, especially in relation to new technologies. This made investments in for instance Geothermal Energy more risky and less attractive.

Discussions about the legal context could serve two pur-poses. On the one hand participants exchanged knowl-edge about how to deal with certain regulations, as well as ways to legally navigate around them, providing them with new opportunities. On the other hand, of course these discussions could be of interest for law makers and regulators, although implementing some of the sug-gestions raised would of course take a long process.

7

Organization and realization of common goalsThe third theme focused on how various goals that were projected on BSH could be realized. This discussion played out on two levels. On one level, the game served as a ‘market place’, where various parties could learn about the goals of others and join in alliances with them, or at least explore the idea.

On another level, important questions were raised as to which party should take on what role, and how (new) business models could help them attain their goals. One interesting development was that new roles seemed to emerge for parties to manage or organize particular col-lective goals.In relation to the development of housing, a number of architects have taken on new roles in BSH as architect-developers who run a number of CPO-projects (Collective Private Development) on one large lot that became avail-able after a large private developer had to back out during the financial crisis. The architects developed apartment buildings, in close cooperation with their future owners, adhering as much as possible according to the principles of the circular economy. As a group they also collaborat-ed and exchanged knowledge about sustainable building processes and learned a lot from each other. They would like to expand their knowledge by collaboratively devel-

oping a new lot. Because they have created a role that doesn’t formally exist in current development schemes, it has been very difficult to apply for the development of new lots. They aren’t able to comply with the rules set up for large private developers, and in the collective form it’s also difficult to sign up for neighboring lots that are assigned to be developed by individuals.

Another problem that emerged was the organization of business models around circular economy projects. For instance the Bio Refinery plans to extract nutrients from waste water. While this is beneficial for the environment, currently individuals who would like to contribute to such a system have to make a private investment to install the right waste water systems – making this partly an in-verted commons-problem: the investment is private, the gains are collective. There is currently no financial model to stimulate such private investment in communal gains.

One option could be to commodify wastewater as a resource for nutrients, although currently no market for such nutrients exists. It may even be illegal to trade in nutrients that can be extracted from urine like phos-phates. However, in the future phosphates shortages are predicted, as mines will run dry. Again, the question is what kind of financial schemes can we design that

8

translate possible (but as yet uncertain) future profits into current day investments? And which party could take up that role. For instance, the organization that currently manages wastewater treatment is currently not allowed to make a profit of commercial exploitation of resources found in wastewater.

A last point that was made on the collaborative devel-opment of BSH was the issue of phasing and timing. Particular decisions (for instance what kind of sewage system and pipes are to be installed) are made during a particular phase of the development. When made collec-tively, these decisions can lead to collective advantages, or to the realization of goals that can only be reached collectively – for instance: a separate wastewater sys-tem for yellow and brown water only makes sense if the generic infrastructure provides hook-ups for it. Especially in the self-building community, this is a recurring issue. The need is apparent for collective organization of certain aspects of the building process, yet the phasing of indi-vidual trajectories sometimes prohibits this.

On a final note, many present acknowledged that under certain circumstances, collective organization is impor-tant. A representative from the city government under-lined that insight, saying that for the city government it is

impossible to negotiate with all individual parties involved in BSH. It would be easier to negotiate with a collective organization that puts forth a collective agenda for the area.

The most important conclusion from this part of the dis-cussion, is that the development of a circular economy requires new models of organization, that allow stake-holders to take on the role of managing collective issues. These range from energy production to housing develop-ment. Yet, current legal and financial models need to be rethought in order to make important steps forward.

The need for future innovation in Buiksloterham is not per se technological. Just as important, are rethinking the systems governing innovation on an organizational, legal, and financial level. There’s no clear (research) agenda to develop this. What we discovered during Play the City is that the game-changers in Buiksloterham are actively experimenting with the possibilities.

9

In this chapter we focus on the medium of gaming, analyzing how the City Innovation Game allows players to collaboratively discuss opportunities and challenges for developing Buiksloterham into a circular city. This section is structured as follows: first we outline how games can be understood in terms of their mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics (MDA). After reporting about the game mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics, the report evalu-ates the event and ends with some reflections on the potential of games for ‘Hackable Citymaking’. With Hack-able Citymaking we mean the practices in which various stakeholders organize themselves into collectives to break into the current workings of the city, with the goal of making it a better place.

Approach: using the MDA model to understand games and city makingThe model used in this report is the so-called MDA mod-el.1 This is a common way to understand (video) games in terms of their formal rules and game-play (Mechanics), the (social) interactions these systems afford (Dynamics), and the play experience players have of the game (Aes-thetics). The model is helpful to break games down into separate elements that can be studied in more detail.

I. Mechanics can be analyzed by understanding the formal rules and aims structuring the game.

II. Dynamics can be analyzed by focusing on the execu-tion phase of the game as a system that affords certain player interactions, e.g. who can take turns and how can players react on each other.

III. Aesthetics can be analyzed by looking at experiential game components, observing player behavior during the game and people’s responses, e.g. is it fun to play?

The advantage of using this model is that it can serve as a way to evaluate and inform further prototyping. By highlighting designer and player agency the model helps to better understand how game development and play are connected. A game designer usually enters from the side of the game mechanics. This is the part of the game (s)he has the most influence on. Players enter the game from the side of aesthetics. To some degree play-ers shape their own experiences by bringing in a playful attitude, expectations, and a measure of literacy what it takes to collectively create an experience of “the well-played game”.2 Game dynamics lie somewhere between what designers can do and what players can do, and is to a considerable degree an emergent phenomenon.

Game mechanics: material setting and structuring elementsThe game is played around a huge table with a 1:300 scale model of the Buiksloterham. The game board consists of a 3D realistic map of the area that during the game is to be build up with all kinds of small physi-cal models (houses, offices, solar panels, wind turbines, parks, roads, waterways). In this instance of the game, all participants played their own role. In this first public try-out there are no explicit rules and no true gameplay (no way to win or otherwise end the game). This does not mean that the game is totally without rules. For one, the game was heavily moderated and therefore lead to structured conversation rather than emergent game-

2 USING PLAY TO DISCUSS THE FUTURE OF BUIKSLOTERHAM

1 Hunicke, Robin, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. 2004. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. Paper read at Proceedings of the Challenges in Game AI Workshop, Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI ‘04), at San Jose, California. http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.2 De Koven, Bernie. 1978. The well-played game : A player’s philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

10

play. We call this sequential play rule. The implicit rule also was that everyone behaves in a civil way and waits to take turns to “play” their stakes. In their introduc-tion Frank Alsema (Stadslab Buiksloterham), Khashayar Ghiabi (Pakhuis De Zwijger) and Ekim Tan (Play the City) explained that one of the aims is to decide on the rules together with the players. The game furthermore con-sists of the following structuring elements:

A. The physical setting: a large table with 1:300 model Buiksloterham

B. Sets of game objects that were used to populate the game table with things to talk about: i. Resources such as buildings, infra, public green,

renewable energy; ii. Innovation cards to build business case models for

categories like energy, water, materials and waste; iii. Money that people can invest (not used during this

edition).

C. The timeframe: after the introduction there were three more rounds planned of about 45 minutes each. . These rounds consisted of two sub-rounds: free interac-tion and collective and sequential reporting. Altogether, the following rounds were announced:i. “Position and Vision” - participants briefly introduce

themselves and state their ideas for Buiksloterham.ii. “Buiksloterham Now” - what are current plans and

what is already present at the Buiksloterham? During this phase people individually and together set out to populate the game board with their stakes.

iii. “Buiksloterham Now or Never” - what is needed for Buiksloterham to develop into a Circular Economy? During this public round people spoke about their stakes and ambitions.

iv. i“Buiksloterham Soon” - what steps can we take to get there? In this final round people discussed what was needed to achieve their roles, and what coali-tions they saw as potentially productive.

Game dynamics: playing and interactionsIn the first round participants explained what they are currently doing in the Buiksloterham, and what they envision for its future. The group turned out to be fairly large with over 30 initial participants. Participants were also varied: from housing corporations, investors, water and energy companies, architecture offices, Amsterdam municipality, pressure groups, local entrepreneurs, social workers, inhabitants and people from adjacent neighbor-hoods. Notably, some heavyweight stakeholders in the Buiksloterham were not present or under-represented.

Already during the introduction, some informal playful in-teractions could be observed between participants, many of whom knew each other from previous events and ne-gotiations. Little jokes were cracked and fun was poked of each other as a way to break the ice and release some tension built up in advance. Yet at the same time there seemed to also be some apprehension during the round of introductions. Some people were not yet ready to openly put their cards on the table.

In the next round participants were asked to put cards and resources on the table to reflect their current invest-ments. The game masters played a very important role. They were Ekim Tan, Khashayar Ghiabi, and Frank Alse-ma. They welcomed new players to the board, explained the game and aim, and took turns in inviting players to speak. Their role as game masters was not limited to moderating the three rounds. During the informal breaks they actively helped and spurred players to invest and stake claims on the board.

The second and third rounds started with free interaction between players. During these non-plenary and more informal rounds people started to chat with each other. These informal moments seemed to stimulate informal interactions and getting to know one another.

During the second and third rounds plenary dialogues emerged about ambitions, plans and obstacles. During these discussions, players together signaled and at-tempted to formulate obstacles in more precise terms. Moreover, players were thinking about potential solutions together. Another observable dynamic was that players shared actual knowledge about the neighborhood, like who owns what plot, what is already there, what is the most current state of affairs. An example of this infor-mation-sharing dynamic was how several players talked about the former incinerator plot, which has polluted soil, and a large housing corporation having developing rights.

Much of the information sharing, analyzing and ideation was done in a complementary and affirmative way. How-ever tensions arose too, during the informal in-between moments and during plenary discussions. During round one I spoke with several smaller stakeholders. A local de-veloper who owns a plot and building feels that smaller initiators and innovators are not consulted in developing the Buiksloterham area. In his view it would be easy for the municipality to consult people and invite them to the table. Another person from a green initiative feels that the government may have high ambitions with circularity and sustainability, but that their rules do not match and often conflict with these aims. During the plenary discus-

11

sion other tensions emerged, like those between CPO (“collective private commissioning”, i.e. self-building col-lectives) initiators and investors, or between smaller and larger parties in the area. Stakeholders did not always agree about the investment pledged for a truly sustain-able circular agenda. Some smaller stakeholders felt that the larger parties spent too little on these aims. Another tension was a difference in knowledge levels between more advanced collectives and starting collectives, which can be a hindrance to equal investment of time and resources in new coalitions. Finally, an interesting tension that emerged was between local inhabitants and institutional stakeholders like Waternet. Self-builders are putting their energy in managing the scarce green public spaces in the Buiksloterham, but they need actions from institutional partners like Waternet. In short, the game elicited a fairly detailed quick overview of the main ques-tions, issues, and tensions in the area. It should be noted that not every stakeholder seemed totally candid about aims and ambitions, and kept their cards close to their chest.

Aesthetics: experiencing the gameIn terms of the experience of the game, a number of ele-ments can be identified:First, the game board acted as a “focal thing” for group conversations.3 This term is derived from philosopher of technology Albert Borgmann, who considered the fire-place as a social setting to convene around in the house without necessarily having very intense face-to-face discussions with a lot of eye contact. Similarly, the game board provides shared view of the Buiksloterham area. It makes abstract discussions and launching ideas far more concrete by allowing players to point out specific locations and shuffle around cards. In addition, the game boards acts as a co-creation tool that enables people to create new things on the board and collectively make the game boards “theirs” by doing things together on the board. Speaking and thinking out loud around the visu-ally evolving board creates an energetic feeling of “we can make a change”. Participants were engaging with each other’s plans, were showing interest, and making connections. The more concrete the ideas the better. Abstract ideas without a physical anchor cannot be easily visualized on the game board. Where would one put more abstract issues like air quality or social equal-ity? How can you resolve conflicting ideas about urban futures on the board? The play experience was, to a large degree, mediated by the game masters. The moderation was done in an infor-mal and personal way, making the gathering light-spirited and constructive. Participants were addressed by their first names, and the moderators had a good background overview of who is who, and how to forge connections.

The relative equality between players in terms of who are allowed to speak, and who may develop initiative, creates a level playing field and contributes to the play experience. In fact it seemed as if the smaller initiators were more proactive had more to say than the larger institutional players, who sometimes remained more subdued and reactive in their contributions.

3 See Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2007. Devices of Engagement: On Borgmann’s Philosophy of Information and Technology. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 11 (1), http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v6n1/verbeek.html.

12

Evaluation In this section I attempt to combine a provisional evalu-ation of the game along the MDA model, with some possible ways to think about development of the game for further prototyping and testing. It should be noted that different games may be deployed for different ends. For example, strategy games are more conducive to investigate potential futures and build coalitions between players; simulations can be ways to test out scenarios and receive instant feedback on actions; social games can be ways to convene a group of stakeholders around an issue, and allow trust to be built; educational games might be used to learn new facts and strategies. Fur-ther research needs to be done in order to find a proper match between the game type, an urban issue, the main agents, and the setting.

In the project hackable city we attempt to understand and influence new ways of making the city by learning from hacker culture. To this end, we have identified from literature three elements of hackable city making that together help to understand how city making could be made more open to others with the help of digital media technologies:

1. Hackability is an affordance of systems at the institutional level, referring to openness, flexibility, modifi-ability, and resilience. For example, the current system of energy provisioning is made hackable by allowing people to feed energy obtained through solar or otherwise back to the grid, and by self-organizing in energy cooperations.

2. Hacking is a social practice and mode of organi-zation, referring to sharing practices, networked peer-based production, meritocratic reputation management, and learning by doing. For example, sharing knowledge in an open way enables people to quickly learn and inno-vate, and share alike, and create communities.

3. The hacker ethic is an attitude, a mode of ad-dressing problems in playful, inquisitive ways through tinkering, while alternating between problem-solving and problem-seeking. For example, many self-builders in the Buiksloterham have a “can do” mentality and are experi-menting with a variety of solutions for circular cities.

We will see how these three elements of hacking the city are supported by a game like City Innovation Game Buiksloterham.

Mechanics The mechanics of City Innovation Game Buiksloterham are modeled on reality. They attempt to simulate this reality to a certain degree, albeit necessarily with some simplifications, otherwise it would become too compli-cated. It is important to realize what is simplified and what is left more or less in its “as is” state. This is what allows games to act as tools to enable hackable cities: cities people feel they can shape and make. Oftentimes the sheer complexity of cities seems to stifle people from becoming actors. Through deliberate simplification, games open up a horizon for understanding and action. People can become active players with agency instead of mere consumers, users or subjects. A game makes the city hackable.

In City Innovation Game Buiksloterham these simplifica-tions involved the spatial bracketing of the setting. In “real” cities, a neighborhood never exists in isolation but on the game board it does. Further, abstract issues were not afforded by the material setting (and thus function-ally left out of the gameplay) as they could not easily be placed anywhere. A number of complicating issues in the area like soil pollution were not made playable. The range of agents on the other hand was a fairly adequate representation of the actual stakeholders, and their sometimes diverging interests.

DynamicsA setting like City Innovation Game Buiksloterham allows complex dynamics between people to emerge. People can form bonds of trust, new coalitions, and exchange knowledge about the area and opportunities, that enable the self-organization of collective practices of hacking the city. At the level of the dynamics, the game allows social practices of hacking the city to emerge.

AestheticsAt the level of aesthetics, City Innovation Game Bui-ksloterham stimulates people to develop a playful hacker ethic, envisioning themselves as change agents and fostering a “can do” mentality and sense of agency. The game demonstrates that putting together a group of people around a board always triggers interactions and playfulness. How do you nudge players into a playful mood, and stimulate creative tinkering? Crucial in design-ing games is how to make people take the plunge into the proverbial “rabbit hole”.

13

HACKABLE CITY STRATEGIESIn our research we found that projects that we have labeled as ‘hackable’ use of a number of strategies, that often take the form of media platforms or events. In the City Innovation Game a number of these strategies are operative at the same time. The table below gives a brief overview of these:

Knowledge Communities A Knowledge Community is a group of people with certain expertise, gained either by education or by intense occupation with a given issue, who are willing to come together and share their knowledge both among themselves and externally. Knowledge Communities are useful to hackable city-making because they form the first step of creating a pool of collective intelligence and allow participants to learn from each other. It’s also a way to institutionalize the knowledge gained in a project and make it available for those who join later.

Community Marketplaces By establishing Community Market-places, the members of a group can gain access to products, services, and experiences delivered by their fellow members and exchange them on a peer-to-peer basis. They can take the form of online platforms, social media self-organized groups or mobile phone apps. The exchange of goods and services can be volun-tary, or financially rewarded. Sometimes, alternative bookkeep-ing systems are used (such as time banks).

Visualizing Development Opportunities In this strategy op-portunities for development are revealed, for instance through collaborative mapping exercises or by data-analysis and data-visualization

Designing Government Frameworks Expanding its practices into an institutionalized context and having an influence on a societal scale, a hackable citymaking initiative often needs tools that either improve existing governmental processes or propose alternatives. In order to do that, they need to design new gover-nance frameworks and advocate for their adoption by relevant institutional bodies. In order to achieve that, they might need to write specifications documents and participate in lobbying bodies and organizations.

Trust Brokers Under the term Trust Brokers, we include any kind of activity with the goal of increasing the feeling of belonging and connectedness among community members

One of the results of the City Innova-tion Game was that knowledge was ex-changed, and stakeholder learned from each other about current development, regulations, the affordances of new tech-nologies. This knowledge wasn’t formal-ized, but some participants said that for hem this aspect was one of the most at-tractive and useful for them.

Although the City Innovation Game cer-tainly didn’t function as an official market place or exchange, the game afforded players to state their demands and sup-plies, and explore whether coalitions could be forged.

In the City Innovation Game, potential scenario’s for the development of BSH were literally visualized by putting mod-els on the playing board. This made these scenario’s more concrete, and allowed for thinking them through collectively.

Government regulations were discussed quite often during the City Innovation Game. A game setting like this could be helpful for lawmakers to learn about chal-lenges and opportunities from stakehold-ers, and test out alternative scenarios.

Games like the City Innovation Game can be understood to function as a trust broker. It brings various stakeholders to-gether in a playful setting, allowing them to get to know each other, and build up mutual trust.

14

15

It may seem strange to address a serious urban problem via a game. Playing games seems to have little to do with urban developments. There are at least two reasons why games are excellent media to bring together various stakeholders and makes complex urban futures debat-able in a collective and political way.

Dealing with complexity It is frequently stated that society has become more complex and risky. Many people and organizations acute-ly feel the pressure to become adaptive and resilient to cope with the uncertainties of a rapidly changing world, in which everything seems connected to everything else. Business as usual will no longer do, it is said. Games are ways to learn how to cope with complexity and uncer-tainty. Games are systems with unpredictable outcomes that allow players to experiment in a safe space without their actions having grave consequences. Games have become an acceptable legitimate way to try out alterna-tives for the future.

Making decisions collectivelyAnother reason is that games are great ways to discuss the future of cities in a collective way. Games are a means to make urban design “political”, in the sense of being about real visions and decision-making rather than a mere technical matter of making optimal choices. A game like City Innovation Game Buiksloterham actually makes people aware of potential new interactions and relationships in their city by playing. Shifting relation-ships between actors are part of the lived experience of the game. Especially in an urban setting this seems particularly urgent. City Innovation Game Buiksloterham moreover is a tool to explore paths that people need to walk to achieve their goals. Not only does the game ask

“what if..?”, it is also a tool to ask “how to..?” To shape and make the future of Buiksloterham we might need to play much more often.

A final note was made about using the game as a con-tinuous tool for the development of Buiksloterham. A variety of actors said that it would be really helpful to use the game also within stakeholder-organizations – such as the City of Amsterdam or Waternet - to get a better understanding of the developments in BSH as well as to synch the approaches of various departments within an organization. And whereas this session had a very open format that mainly was meant to introduce par-ties and their plans to each other, it was also envisioned that it could be very useful to develop a number of more specific scenario’s within separate game sessions, by for instance focusing on the bio refinery or energy produc-tion and exchange within the area.

FINAL THOUGHTS