ABSTRACT
When we think about who is making place, we tend to consider what Fincher et al. (2016: 517) refer to as those responsible for “professional place-making initiatives,” that is, those involved particularly in urban renewal programs that seek to redress disparities within localized places or neighborhoods. Nonetheless, policies focused on place-making suggest that it is a collaborative process of “creating, enhancing and managing people focused places that respond to and respect the unique qualities of each location” (City of Greater Dandenong: website). Yet, what often underpins many place-making programs are top-down approaches to upgrade places in states of distress or decay as a means of attracting investment, which may then be promoted as a means of helping disadvantaged communities (Shaw and Porter 2008; Wood and Cigdem 2012). Such strategies are problematic. As many scholars have pointed out, the success of place-making strategies in attracting finance and new markets leads to increased land values, which, in turn, leads to displacement or social exclusion of disadvantaged inhabitants (Fincher et al. 2016; Shaw and Porter 2008). Moreover, the question ‘who is making place?’ in terms of the built environment also raises questions about how we consider community and how this entity is constituted in place.
