Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2014, volume 41, pages 413 – 429 doi:10.1068/b39098 The importance of creative participatory planning in the public place-making process Elizelle J Cilliers ¶, Wim Timmermans Van Hall Larenstein, University of Applied Sciences, Wageningen, The Netherlands; e‑mail: juanee.cilliers@nwu.ac.za, wim.timmermans@wur.nl Received 6 June 2012; in revised form 31 January 2013; published online 10 April 2014 Abstract. The idea of ‘place’ has long been central to the planning and design practice. Recent trends illustrate increased intervention in the ‘experience’ and ‘feeling’ of places, in order to influence and enhance community dynamics. While place-making is an important tool for experts to utilize in community planning, it should be accompanied by a thorough understanding of the contemporary social dynamics of place and the implications it has for the people who inhabit these places. In this sense, participatory planning forms an integral part of future place-making processes and planning thereof. In this paper, the first aim is to capture the importance of incorporating public perspective into the place-making process when considering future urban planning. The second is to stress the importance of the creative participatory processes to attract stakeholders and enhance their willingness to partake in the participatory planning processes. The third aim is to identify creative participatory planning tools that can be used to enhance participatory planning within the place-making process. Keywords: creative participatory planning, place-making, place, space, creative participation tools 1 Introduction to space, place, and place-making In an urban planning context the concepts of space and place are often used interchangeably, although they are different in terms of definition and implementation. Space is organized into places, often thought of as bounded settings in which social relations and identity are constituted (Radboud University Nijmegen, 2000). The concept of ‘trialectic of spatiality’ (Lefebvre, 1991; Soja, 1996) proposes three realms of understanding and experiencing space as a dialectical triad. Firstly, conceived space (a representation of space) is the dominant mode for understanding space, and the primary mode of operation for planners, and involves the ordering of abstract knowledge and values into signs and codes that are both implicit and explicit. The second realm is perceived space (spatial practice), and this refers to the mediated experiences of space that are coherent and empirically measurable. This involves the interpretation of the signs and codes, accurately or otherwise. Thirdly, lived space (spaces of representation) is directly produced and experienced as images and symbols formed by the everyday life of users (Lefebvre, 1991; Soja, 1996). Lively spaces (places with function and meaning) emerge as a result of people using the space to perform the necessities of daily life. Place, on the other hand, is a portion (an interpretation) of geographical space, defined as ‘territories of meaning’ (Holt‑Jensen, 1999, page 224). “Places are spaces that you can remember, that you can care about and make part of your life. The world should be filled with places so vivid and distinct that they can carry significance. Places could bring emotions, recollections, people, and even ideas to mind” (Lyndon, 1983, page 2). ¶ Also at North‑West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, 2520 North West, South Africa.