This post is an adapted version of a paper I wrote during my Masters of Community Planning program, submitted to Jessie Hemphill of Alderhill Planning. I am grateful to her and the impact she has had on my personal and professional learning, unlearning and growth within the planning field.
A high percentage of Indigenous people in Canada live in urban areas (40% of status and 74% non-status[1]), yet this is not reflected in most urban landscapes. Almost all major Canadian cities have displaced Indigenous inhabitants from their territories. These cities are built on unceded lands as settler colonial spaces using colonial tools and processes. Without spatial recognition or representation, Indigenous histories, values, places and identities continue to be marginalized in Canadian urban areas. Indigenous rights to land and self-determination are mainly ignored, challenged, and policed in urban built environments, which have become sites of capitalist gain. According to Nejad and Walker, "Indigenous urbanism includes creating a material and discursive sense of place for Indigenous inhabitants in the everyday lived experience of the city, as well as examining where the authority to act resides in planning and policy‐making processes" (Nejad & Walker, 2019).
Research on Indigenous urbanism is growing, as is a focus on the role of cities in reconciliation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) have prompted action from governments (such as Federal Bill-15 and British Columbia’s Bill 41, DRIPA) as well as from urban planners, designers and architects. Fourteen of the TRC’s Calls to Action are relevant to municipal governments. This new legislation and knowledge have prompted policy, engagement practices, project scopes, and planning processes. With this change has come a new focus on reimagining cities as sites of reconciliation and Indigenous reclamation of urban landscapes.
Placemaking
Placemaking is a collaborative process that aims to create spaces for community connection, evoking meaning and strengthening our relationship to place. According to Project for Public Spaces, it is also about maximizing shared value: “more than just promoting better urban design, placemaking facilitates creative patterns of use, paying particular attention to the physical, cultural, and social identities that define a place and support its ongoing evolution.” Placemaking is often confused as a beautification strategy for underused spaces. However, I believe placemaking has gained popularity primarily as a philosophy for spatial co-production that empowers non-traditional city builders to become involved in creating community connection points and reasserting belonging in public space.
Most placemaking initiatives aim to create inclusive, safe, accessible, beautiful public places, so it is essential to consider that feelings of belonging, safety, and inspiration are experienced differently by individuals based on their identity. A person’s race, class, gender, ability, citizenship and other intersecting identities will impact how they experience a place and how much power they feel they have in creating the future of their community (Toolis, 2017). This also includes a person or group’s historical relationship with the land, particularly for those displaced from their land. While the term “placemaking” has gained traction within the last two decades, it is essential to note that the practice of “placemaking” is not new. The earliest “placemakers” were Indigenous land stewards who created living spaces in relationship with the environment and each other in ways that have evolved and are ongoing.
Indigenous Placemaking
According to the Indigenous Place Making Council of Canada, “placemaking should be a collaborative process towards reconciliation aimed at creating places that restore Indigenous visibility in Canadian society and project Indigenous identity, worldviews, and values.” What sets Indigenous placemaking apart from traditional placemaking is the “unmediated participation of Indigenous peoples in the urban design process according to their own knowledge, approaches and methods” (Jojola, 2013; Stewart, 2015). Indigenous placemaking disrupts expectations around consultation and reconciliation because it occurs in the urban environment and not rural or reserve lands, which is typically where Indigenous issues are relegated (Nejad, Walker, Newhouse, 2020). Given the potential for collaboration and transformation through placemaking, this paper aims to explore how placemaking might be a tool for reconciliation, and if so, how? What does this mean for contemporary planners?
Literature Review
Indigenous placemaking is not yet widely researched, though it does share significant overlap with similar areas of inquiry. Research on Indigenous urbanism, Indigenous design, relationship to place, engagement methods, collaboration between local governments and First Nations, heritage, and land rights and title is all foundational to Indigenous placemaking research. In this literature review I have primarily focused on academic literature out of Canada that uses the term “placemaking” or “placekeeping” to describe the process and concept of collaborative spatial production in urban areas. Interestingly, most research specifically on Indigenous placemaking has been within the last five years, with several critical articles published only this year in 2021. Most authors writing on the subject provide both a critique of “mainstream” placemaking (both processes and outcomes) and an argument for why Indigenizing placemaking is needed. Other research has looked at specific Indigenous placemaking projects to understand better how it can be done effectively. Though placemaking is typically characterized as being community-led, the research focuses exclusively on projects led or at least initiated by cities. Less attention is given to community-led and unsanctioned placemaking.
Location
Research on the visible representation of Indigenous people in urban areas is limited internationally (Porter, 2013), with some exceptions (see Wall, 2016). However, research on Indigenous planning issues is an emerging field with most work coming out of so-called Canada and New Zealand. This work builds on an existing relationship between researchers in these nations who share similar histories of British colonization and forced assimilation. The Maori are different from Indigenous nations in Canada in two notable ways. Namely, the Maori have a larger population in relation to settler New Zealanders and a shared language. Indigenous peoples in Canada are culturally and linguistically diverse and spread across a giant landmass. Despite these differences, there is a meaningful connection and knowledge mobilization between scholars, planners, and activists in these two countries. It is surprising that there isn’t more research on Indigenous placemaking in the United States, as there is a significant amount of research on arts-based and civic placemaking. Research in the U.S. was primarily prompted by nationwide funding opportunities for creative placemaking (including for Native American Tribes), which has been available since Obama was elected in 2008.
Urban Reserves
Most research on Indigenous placemaking is within the context of settler cities. However, Tomiak’s study aims to understand how new urban reserves work to either reinforce or subvert existing colonial capitalist space in the city (2017). Unlike old reserves, new reserves typically come about when a First Nation decides to use their settlement money to purchase land (often for commercial use). While both versions of reserves are creations of the settler state, new urban reserves are also sites of Indigenous placemaking and reclamation. While Tomiak does not believe that new urban reserves are disrupting existing power structures or discourse about Indigeneity in urban spaces, she does see them as contested spaces where self-determination can be exercised, albeit within a colonial framework.
Key sources
The book of essays Reclaiming Indigenous Planning edited by Walker, Jojola and Natcher (2013) is among the most widely referenced sources for work on the themes I noted above, most importantly for research on Indigenous placemaking. This book mobilizes international and interdisciplinary knowledge from Canada to Australia, linking modern planning with traditional knowledge such as the Seven Generations model in an attempt to demonstrate how planning has been and can be reclaimed in positive ways. Walker and Jojola have both made significant contributions to research and writing on Indigenous planning. Jojola is a member of the Pueblo of Isleta and is based in the United States and Ryan Walker has settler heritage from England and Ireland and is based in Canada.
“Indigenous placemaking and the built environment: Toward transformative urban design” by Nejad, Newhouse and Walker (2020) is among the most prominent and well-referenced articles on the subject in Canada. The article responds to the fact that the role of urban design in the oppression of urban Indigenous residents is not yet well understood. It advocates for more comprehensive work and conversations on Indigenous urbanism that includes discussions on the impacts of design and space on Indigenous people in settler cities. This article effectively sets the context of space, place and time, describing why Indigenous placemaking is needed during this era, where reconciliation and decolonization are at the forefront of many conversations about change. The authors reference particular changes for the planning profession, namely the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the 2019 Policy on Planning Practice and Reconciliation created by the Canadian Institute of Planners. The authors provide a critique of current practices of urban design and placemaking, and argue that placemaking needs to be re-imagined through the lens of reconciliation and socio-spatial justice.
Critique of Mainstream Placemaking
While contemporary placemaking has been widely celebrated for its potential to increase civic participation and reclaim public space, it is not without criticism. Well-meaning placemaking interventions may have unintended consequences and even reproduce the same inequalities that the project was meant to address (e.g. exclusion, racial equity, colonization). Recent articles critique placemaking for using settler colonial practices that ignore Indigenous history and the opportunity to re-Indigenize colonized urban space and instead may continue to perpetuate harm and make Indigenous presence invisible (Berns & Berbary, 2021; Nejad, Walker & Newhouse, 2020; Choudry, 2020). Critiques are relevant for individuals and groups engaging in placemaking processes, though the critique in the literature is primarily towards local governments and civic/municipal placemaking projects. Scholars argue that the contemporary politics of planning and placemaking are reproducing colonial ideologies and practices that make the presence of Indigenous communities invisible in cities (Nejad, Walker, Newhouse, 2020).
In their article “Placemaking as unmaking: Settler Colonialism and the Myth of ‘Revitalized’ Urban Spaces,” Berns and Berbary challenge the celebration of placemaking as inclusive, transformational, and participatory (2021). In the same way that terra nullius was used to justify the violent taking of “unused” natural land, urbs nullius, the idea that urban space is unused or in need of intervention, has been used to justify revitalization and gentrification by colonial governments (Coulthard 2014). The authors argue that the remaking of urban spaces through placemaking ignores the reality and meaning of the space prior to colonization which violently displaced First Nations and severed their attachment to the land. This article uses the example of Goudies Lane in Kitchener, Ontario to unpack the complexity of placemaking practices on land promised to the Six Nations and the Grand River peoples and within the traditional territories of the Attawandaron (Neutral), Anishnaabeg, and Haudenosaunee peoples. This ‘revitalization’ project occurred in a laneway that had become a space used mainly by homeless folks. In summary, the alley was painted with a mural branded with business association colours, lit with trendy lights and installed with picnic tables. While this project may have looked nice on the surface, the authors have four main criticisms. First, the project did not draw on place-based connections or the experiences of users. Two, the design of the space sends a message about who and who is not in control of the space. Three, the design upholds the existing status quo prioritizing economic gain and thus makes it less inviting for marginalized users. And fourth, it ignores the meaning of the space prior to colonization. They conclude by suggesting that gentrification itself is a colonial construct: “the concept of placemaking within hegemonic systems must ignore that the place was already made” (2021, p. 7).
Berns and Berbary’s article similarly highlights how crucial it is to recognize how placemaking may unintentionally hide racial and socio-economic violence in socially acceptable processes, becoming complicit in ongoing marginalization and settler colonialism (2021). This article provides an additional critique of modern placemaking by distinguishing between “sanctioned” (allowed by or in collaboration with the City) and “unsanctioned” placemaking (grassroots, without permission). I believe this is an important distinction which comparable studies do not discuss clearly. They argue that sanctioned placemaking is “at best… a strategy of ‘appropriate class-radicalism’ (Kroker, 1978) that can appease desires for activism without inflaming dominant powers” (2021, p. 9). Unsanctioned placemaking like tent cities or activist encampments are typically criminalized and destroyed because they challenge the status quo and undermine the control of those in power. This occurs despite unsanctioned projects encompassing the values that scholars praise: they are citizen-led, bottom-up, and collaborative. Meanwhile placemaking that serves an economic agenda like revitalization, even that which is considered “gentle activism,” is applauded. This brings up important questions such as: Who gets to decide what placemaking is? Will sanctioned placemaking ever be unsettling enough to make a significant impact at a structural level?
Indigenous Placemaking Potential
To varying degrees, the authors in my review agree that Indigenous placemaking has the potential to reclaim urban landscapes, assert sovereignty and may even be a tool for reconciliation (Choudry, 2020; Chung-Tiam-Fook, 2020; Nejad, Newhouse & Walker, 2020; Raerino, Macmillan, Field & Hoskins, 2021). However, it is also agreed that this will only be possible within a renewed understanding and assertion of Indigenous urbanism. In the literature I reviewed, spatial production in the context of a reimagined Indigenous urbanism is often synonymous with the concept of Indigenous placemaking (see Puketapu-Dentice, Connelly, Thompson-Fawcett, 2017; Raerino, Macmillan, Field, Hoskins, 2021; Walker & Jojola, 2013). Underpinning this renewal must be the acknowledgement of inherent rights and self-determination. The central argument in “This is an Indigenous city; why don’t we see it?” Indigenous urbanism and spatial production in Winnipeg” is that Indigenous urban inhabitants have a right to spatial production and placemaking based on their lived experience and situated aspirations for a good life. These rights are inherent because urban spaces are on Indigenous land (Nejad, Walker, 2019).
‘Re-indigenisation’ of urban design is also used to describe the work of Indigenous peoples to reaffirm their enduring presence and culture on their traditional lands in cities. Advocates of this Indigenous-led movement aim to reclaim public space and everyday environments by “contesting, unsettling and disrupting the ongoing creation of urban centres that serve only to reflect settler power” (Raerino, Macmillan, Field, Hoskins, 2021, p. 4). According to the authors, the future of urban design in settler cities must include their re-indigenization. “Redesigning” and “reimagining” neighbourhoods is simply not enough on its own. Nejad, Walker and Newhouse agree, saying that it has the potential to “re-assert physical, political and symbolic cultural presence” which helps the city become a contested space “where competing ontologies and politics challenge settler colonial common sense and state power” (2020, p. 439). Alternatively, Puketapu-Dentice, Connelly, and Thompson-Fawcett’s research illustrates how Indigenous cultural values can be utilized in the development and design of spatially just urban environments aimed at respectful co-existence (2017). In this understanding, reconciliation includes allowing the coexistence of contradictory narratives (Shelley, 2004 in Wall, 2016).
Placekeeping, a reframing of placemaking from an Indigenous perspective, refers to the understanding that place and land inherently exists and has agency (Chung-Tiam-Fook, 2020). This term is less commonly used but adds a vital depth to how Indigenous placemaking might be understood moving forward. Chung-Tiam-Fook defines placekeeping as “a unique form of expression, design, process and praxis that prioritizes the ecological, historical and cultural setting of ‘place’; and engages an expanded role of community in the design process and activations.” In this holistic interpretation, the human role is one of caretaker, steward, responder, and part of a relationship: “As Indigenous peoples, place is both the setting and co-creator of our being in the world, ancestry and memories, stories and ceremonies, languages, land stewardship, cultural paradigms, and social identities.”
While there are variations in the language used to describe Indigenous placemaking and urbanism, the theoretical stance is similar. Research that supports this view looks at what Indigenous placemaking means, why it is essential, how it is currently being done, what an ideal process might entail, its impacts on the community, and lastly, what to avoid.
Impacts
Impacts of Indigenous placemaking to this date are mostly documented anecdotally. Two studies, one in Canada and one in New Zealand, have asked Indigenous participants in placemaking projects to share the impacts and the lessons from these projects. In Canada, researchers used Winnipeg as the site of a case study looking at experiences of Indigenous materiality in the city, including the presence of organizations like Friendship Centres (Nejad & Walker, 2019). In New Zealand, the Te Ara Mua project was launched as a street redesign for safety, walkability and reflection of cultural identity (Raerino, Macmillan, Field, Hoskins, 2021). Results from this study showed that co-design projects have crucial potential to be tools in the reclamation of Indigenous autonomy, increased local-Indigenous presence and revitalization of cultural identity. Participants identified that seeing themselves reflected in the public realm enhances the Te Ao M¯aori (Maori worldview) of community well-being and works to anchor identity through whakapapa (genealogy), thus affirming an individual’s place in the world. More research on the impacts of Indigenous placemaking is needed.
Visibility
Most researchers of placemaking have found that Indigenous re-naming of public spaces and Indigenous public art and architecture can help to reclaim the symbolic significance of original occupancy and acknowledge traditional Indigenous territories (Nejad, Walker, Newhouse, 2020; Raerino, Macmillan, Field, Hoskins, 2021; Chung-Tiam-Fook, 2020). Participants in the Te Ara Mua project affirmed that art is an effective and crucial way of representing Maori presence in place, and is also believed to increase education and ownership of place. While placemaking practices like art and re-naming are proven to have a powerful impact, researchers are adamant that this is not enough. For reconciliation to occur, focus must be on the process as much as the outcome. Visibility through art without intention behind process risks being tokenistic, or what Choudry would call a “settler interpretation of placemaking” (2020).
Colonial framework
One of the key issues challenging Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination through spatial production or placemaking is the colonial framework of cities. Tomiak argues that Indigenous placemaking and self-determination is heavily policed in the context of the city (2017). The colonial understanding of “space” and “place” as passive is at the core of this framework. Indigenous scholars challenge this assumption and assert that place has meaning and agency in itself. Relations of power and privilege are reproduced through western urban development, design, and planning processes in cities (Nejad & Walker, 2019). The western city structure is hierarchical, and decision-making power remains with senior city staff. Choudry poses some pertinent questions: If Indigenous placemaking is controlled by non-Indigenous procedures, standards and rules, is it truly Indigenous placemaking? Will it truly help foster a sense of place and connection among the Indigenous population living in cities? To begin answering these questions she states that a radical transformation of government process is needed to allow for Indigenous placemaking to truly reflect Indigenous culture efficiently (Choudry, 2020). Tomiak asks similar questions: “What does it mean that cities in what is now known as Canada are Indigenous places and premised on the ongoing dispossession of Indigenous peoples? How are the relationships that are governed in and through urban space decolonized and recolonized?” (p. 929). The colonial framework of cities is powerful and encompassing, but I think this quote from Simpson positively sums up how many Indigenous placemakers and scholars feel about taking action regardless of these complex issues:
I am not so concerned with how we dismantle the master’s house, that is, which sets of theories we use to critique colonialism; but I am very concerned with how we (re)build our own house, or our own houses. I have spent enough time taking down the master’s house, and now I want most of my energy to go into visioning and building our new house (Simpson, 2011, p. 32) based on Audre Lorde in Nejad & Walker, 2019.
Gaps in the Research
More research on Indigenous placemaking and spatial production as a tool of reclamation and reconciliation is needed, as it has only recently emerged. Most research has been in Canada and New Zealand, so researchers in other colonial states such as the United States should consider filling this gap. Although researchers of the creative placemaking movement have found that creating metrics for placemaking is particularly challenging, more qualitative data on the process and impacts of placemaking should be considered valuable. When reading the literature, I found it interesting and strange that most authors do not culturally locate or identify themselves. Though most research seems to be completed by teams that have both Indigenous and settler backgrounds, I still think it is relevant to disclose. The one exception is Julie Wall, who identifies herself and describes her intention as a non-Indigenous researcher to be part of a movement of “responsible research” towards reconciliation.
Discussion
It is beyond the scope of this article to dig into every aspect of best practices for Indigenous placemaking process. However, I will attempt to summarize some of the critical lessons I will carry with me as I move into my role as a planner. History and context cannot be disconnected from place. Displacement and ongoing colonization is only one aspect of this. Original place names, stories and oral histories may not be visible in the land, but they are present. An aspect of placemaking is about reclaiming space for human use where they have been marginalized or deprioritized in favor of right of ways for cars for example. The phrase “reclaim the streets” is a common rallying cry amongst placemakers who intend to turn forgotten or hostile spaces into ones that are more walkable, welcoming, safe, healthy, and human-centered. When the “place” that is being “made” is land that has been colonized and stolen, context is important. Who is doing the “reclaiming”? Planners need to look at place as an active participant in the planning process, and the role of planner in relationship with rather than over the land. Influence and control in the process of “making” is just as important as the making itself. Indigenous presence and influence should be visible in the built environment, but also in policy, planning activities and civic documents. This should go without saying, but Indigenous design and programming work should be led by Indigenous people. Indigenous people are not “stakeholders” in the same way as other minority groups. As original land stewards, they are partners, leaders and experts. There is no single Indigenous culture, so there may be conflict over which stories or experiences are reflected in the built environment.
This research has expanded my understanding of placemaking to include a rights-based approach to spatial production and representation. While sanctioned placemaking in the public realm always has more bureaucratic hurdles than unsanctioned grassroots placemaking, the assertion of rights and acknowledgement from colonial governments is crucial in shifting urban design norms and respecting sovereignty. As a settler person who is in the field of planning, I am cautiously optimistic about Indigenous placemaking as a tool for reconciliation. As the research states, this must be paired with a fundamental shift in municipal processes and power dynamics. Tuck and Yang’s article “Decolonization is Not a Metaphor” asserts that decolonization has been superficially adopted to talk about blanket social justice rhetoric, when it is actually about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life (2012). ‘Reconciliation’ similarly risks being misused and misunderstood, and because of that I remain aware that Indigenous placemaking is about so much more than visibility through public art. Process, regulation and decision-making must change at a structural level, which will be uncomfortable for municipal and perhaps other levels of government. I predict challenges with local governments turning over leadership and control. At the same time, a growing number of Indigenous professionals, including architects and planners, are leading the way for Indigenous placemaking in the public realm. The examples I’ve seen reflect Wall’s discussion on Indigenous urbanism involving both contradiction and coexistence, but that urban space as Indigenous space will lead to a “mature civic identity” (2016).
The involvement that Indigenous placemaking requires from communities may also be a challenge. New Canadian legislation requiring consultation with First Nations is overall a positive shift in the planning process, though it has resulted in engagement fatigue for many nations. Capacity is required for true collaborative placemaking, so this will need to be considered moving forward.
Resources
There is yet to be a practical guide on Indigenous placemaking by Indigenous practitioners in Canada. The Indigenous Placemaking Network was formed, but I could not find any current information about them. Because local context is so informative to the process, this may not even be relevant. There is an “International Indigenous Design Charter: Protocols for sharing Indigenous knowledge in professional design practice” (Deakin University, 2018).
In the planning world, recognition for past colonial violence and Indigenous sovereignty is beginning to show up more and more in resources by settler city-builders, placemakers and citizens. For example, Happy City’s “Bring Back Mainstreet Rapid Placemaking Guide” (2020) asks readers “whose land are you on?” pointing to native.ca as a resource. It encourages people to investigate and explains “Each city and town across Canada has been shaped by colonialism and systemic violence against and exclusion of Indigenous people. This violence continues today. We must take responsibility for the exclusionary ways in which decisions about cities are made. This applies to even the smallest pieces of land, as we practice placemaking and tactical urbanism.” It suggests further actions, including: Returning land control to Indigenous communities, moving beyond consultation with Indigenous people toward redistributing real decision-making power to those who have been excluded for too long, creating spaces for Indigenous people to share work, stories, and experiences, creating space for Indigenous gatherings, renaming spaces that have names connected to colonial legacies, and paying Indigenous consultants and collaborators to direct design and programming. I believe this should become the norm in all placemaking guides and resources.
Architects are heavily involved in Indigenous placemaking in Canada. The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) initiated Four Case Studies Exemplifying Best Practices in Architectural Co-design and Building with First Nations as a resource for designers, clients, funders, and policymakers. These case studies found that through collaborative design, projects were able to reflect Indigenous identity and become a foundation for cultural reclamation and growth. Architecture and design company Brook McIlroy has completed several large-scale collaborative placemaking projects and are leading the way in best practices for Indigenous co-design. They house an Indigenous Design studio led by Ryan Gorrie, a Winnipeg based Anishinaabe artist.
Concluding thoughts
Approaches to any kind of placemaking project should incorporate principles laid out by Indigenous scholars and activists. Without centering Indigenous placemaking principles into all placemaking projects we risk continuing to perpetuate harm caused by the settler colonial state through the built environment. There is potential for Indigenous placemaking to serve as a tool for reconciliation, though it must move beyond tokenistic expressions to create contested space that challenges colonial frameworks of city building. More research on spatial production, Indigenous urbanism and placemaking is needed, though innovative projects that create and reclaim space for Indigenous people in urban environments are on the rise.
[1] 2016 Canadian Census. “Urban area” for this statistic is defined as anywhere with a population of at least 1,000 people and a population density of 400 persons or more per square kilometer.
References
Burns, R., & Berbary, L. (2021). Placemaking as Unmaking: Settler Colonialism, Gentrification,
and the Myth of “Revitalized” Urban Spaces. Leisure Sciences.
Choudry, D. (2020). How contemporary colonialism limits the potential of Indigenous Placemaking. Retrieved from:
Canadian Institute of Planners. 2019. Policy on Planning Practice and Reconciliation. Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Planners. http://cip-icu.ca/getattachment/Topics-in-Planning/Indigenous-Planning/policy-indigenous-en-interactive.pdf.aspx
Chung-Tiam-Fook, T. (2020). Re-imagining New Urban Futures Through Indigenous Placekeeping.
Frenette, A. (2017). The Rise of Creative Placemaking: Cross Sector Collaboration as Cultural
Policy in the United States. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 47(5), 333–345.
Hood, S. 2017. “Design for Reconciliation: The Indigenous Place Making Council Reclaims Public Space for First Nations.” Spacing. http://spacing.ca/toronto/2017/07/13/design-reconciliationindigenous-place-making-council-reclaims-public-space-first-nations/
Jojola, T. (2013). Indigenous Planning: Towards a Seven Generations Model. In In Walker, R., & Jojola, T. (2013). Reclaiming Indigenous Planning. McGill-Queens’s University Press.
Nejad, Walker, Newhouse. (2020). Indigenous placemaking and the built environment: toward transformative urban design
Nejad, Walker. (2019). “This is an Indigenous city; why don’t we see it?” Indigenous urbanism and spatial production in Winnipeg
Porter, L., & Barry, J. (2016). Planning for coexistence?: Recognizing indigenous rights through land-use planning in Canada and Australia. Routledge.
Porter, L. (2013). Coexistence in Cities: The challenge of Indigenous urban planning in the 21st century. In Walker, R., Jojola, T., Natcher, N. (eds.), Reclaiming Indigenous Planning. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 283-310.
Kennedy, R., Kelly, M., Martin, B., Greenaway, J. (2018). International Indigenous Design Charter: Protocols for sharing Indigenous knowledge in professional design practice. Published by Deakin University.
Raerino, K., Macmillan, A., Field, A., & Hoskins, R. (2021). Local-indigenous autonomy and community streetscape enhancement: Learnings from māori and te ara mua-future streets project. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 865.
Stewart, P. (2015). “Indigenous Architecture through Indigenous Knowledge.” PhD Diss., University of British Columbia.
Tomiak, J. (2017). Contesting the settler city: Indigenous Self‐Determination, new urban reserves, and the neoliberalization of colonialism. Antipode, 49(4), 928-945.
Toolis, E. (2017). Theorizing Critical Placemaking as a Tool for Reclaiming Public Space.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 59, 184–199.
Tuck, E. & Yang, W. (2012). Decolonization is Not a Metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. 1(1), 1-40.
Walker, R. & Belanger, Y. (2013). Aboriginality and Planning in Canada’s Large Prairie Cities. pp. 193-216. In Walker, R., & Jojola, T. (2013). Reclaiming Indigenous Planning. McGill-Queens’s University Press.
Wall, K. (2016). Gathering place: Urban indigeneity and the production of space in Edmonton, Canada
Comments