Viewpoint Problematizing transdisciplinary urbanism research: A reply to “Seeking Northlake” ☆ Agatino Rizzo a, ⁎, Michail Galanakis b a Architecture Research Group, Luleå University of Technology, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden b Independent Researcher, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland article info Article history: Received 9 November 2016 Accepted 13 November 2016 Available online 26 November 2016 We were very excited that our work on transdisciplinary urbanism inspired Brown et al. (2017) in their research project. After publishing “Transdisciplinary Urbanism: Three experiences from Europe and Canada” (Rizzo & Galanakis, 2015) we hoped to instigate a debate on the current forms of urban studies. Overall, we found the article interesting, well argued, and thought provoking. We hope that there will be more projects by Northlake Collective, and we, for sure, will be happy to read about them. The following critique is not to discipline researchers for misinterpreting Transdisciplinary Urbanism (TU). On the contrary; Brown et al. (2017) demonstrate to us that TU can only take further an ongoing dialogue about conducting research by intervening in urban space. The points we make concern issues that many researchers face, particularly if we work with open and participatory methodological frameworks such as TU. We don't want to set the record straight; we wish to engage in the discussion. We are especially interested in alternative urban studies that leverage complexity and activism to augment our socio-spatial understanding of cities (Rizzo, 2009; Rizzo & Galanakis, 2014). From our point of view, the article “Seeking Northlake” is useful because it illustrates the challenges we face while working with TU. Brown's et al. (2017) research exemplifies how deeply ingrained are disciplinary boundaries on research practices. We see many valid points that the article raises; not least the realization that theorizing “chaos” does not necessarily mean we can/have to deal with it – this being a paradigmatic shift from the Newtonian Cities 64 (2017) 98–99 ☆ A reply to: Brown, M., Benson, G. O. G., Keel, R., Mahoney, E., Porter, J., & Thompson, J. (2017). Seeking Northlake: Place, technology, and public as enabling constraints for urban transdisciplinary research. Cities, 60, 314-322. ⁎ Corresponding author at: Dr. Agatino Rizzo, Architecture Research Group (Room F247), SBN, Luleå University of Technology, 97187 Luleå, Sweden. E-mail address: agatino.rizzo@ltu.se (A. Rizzo). paradigm of linearity, predictability, and stability that shapes much of planning thought (Kiel & Elliott, 1996). We would like to further highlight a number of issues which we hope will contribute to the discussion. Given that the LULab is an academic, interdisciplinary collective that does not include non- experts in the production of knowledge, the first issue concerns the research team itself. The question is: are academic settings the right location for transdisciplinary urbanism research? Gibbons et al. (1994) state that a crucial aspect of “Mode 2” of knowledge production is that multiple players (experts and non-experts) contribute to the creation of such knowledge. However, what Brown et al. (2017) refer to as the “Public” was not an active player in knowledge making but only the final user. The LULab wanted to create a product (addressing a real problem) to stimulate the final users' (the public's) imaginaries. However, in doing so the authors created a dichotomy between those producing knowledge (the experts), and those consuming it (the public). In our view, the researchers could have focused on those who were activated early during the process. We believe that everybody is potentially a knowledge maker (contributing to knowledge with her/his expertise or experience), but not everybody is consciously active in doing so. A second point we would like to make concerns the use of technology in TU. The authors hoped that the use of a common technology would create a neutral environment where different disciplines could connect. However, as they themselves found out during their research, technology is neutral neither to experts nor to non-experts. We see two reasons for this: firstly, meaning is socially constructed (Creswell, 2009), and secondly, even in the current technological transition towards increased online social interaction, the physical urban setting still represents a crucial medium for accruing experience (Kukka et al., 2014). This means that we cannot be sure that the “Public” would be activated by a web platform. In fact, we would argue the contrary: a web platform by itself does not activate potential participants. Consequently, the main result of a process within the framework of transdisciplinary urbanism could have been a temporary intervention rather than a permanent, web-based product. We see more potential in transient, if illusory, possibilities for change - that “window of opportunity” mentioned in Rizzo and Galanakis' (2015) paper. Finally, a question we think is not addressed in the article concerns the public engagement the project aspired to include. Our question is not simple, but simply put is this: if we take for granted http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.001 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities