Page - 138 - in Mobile Culture Studies - The Journal, Volume 3/2017

138 Mobile Culture Studies. The Journal 3 2o17 Patrick Naef | Using mobility and urban planning to implement atmosphere encounter zones. In order to maintain a uniform approach to the landscape, the authorities generally refuse cooperation or personal inputs from inhabitants. Yet, the unpublished report mentioned above highlights the example of Bern, where the authorities provide empty plan- ting trays for the population, who take care of planting and maintenance. As stated in this document: ‘In neighbourhood encounter zones it is a pity to reject habitants’ proposals and to refuse their help. Their active collaboration would allow a better appropriation of public space and would stimulate natural respect, as well as social control, within the neighbourhood.’8 The municipality of Bern also encourages local participation by proposing blank signage posts whe- re the inhabitants themselves can choose the colours and designs. In Basel, public authorities went even further, with the publication in 2014 of a handbook for the development of children games to be developed specifically in encounter zones. (Kinderbüro Basel, 2014) Once again this illustrates the diversity of cultures and practices when it comes to urban planning in a multi-lingual country like Switzerland, where different levels of participation take place. Developing Encounter Zones: A continuously reinvented process If the main purpose of encounter zones is to regulate flows and improve security, they never- theless constitute ideal opportunities to develop public space with atmospheres, enhancing walkability and pedestrian anchorage. By contributing to the appropriation of space by pede- strians, they can bring life to places and become, as stated in their label, ‘sites of encounter’. A tool intended to regulate traffic can thus also participate to the lively attributes of a place. To manage such a process, urban planners and public authorities should handle it within a holistic conception, based mainly on security, fluidity and conviviality. This is even more the case, now that ‘encounter zones’ are being developed in increasingly central and heavily frequented areas, revealing the difficulties of designing public space. In effect, developing public space cannot be confined to a project managed by technical engineers alone. As the architect Barthassat makes clear, when he describes the challenges of including both aesthetical and technical components in a project, stakeholders are like musicians: ‘After the functional elements are settled, you face the technical domain. You must listen without getting caught up in their logic. Finally, you need to function like an orchestra, where musicians play differently, but at the end it must form an opera or a symphony.’ (Personal communication, 16 March 2017) Moreover, public action also involves the subject – the inhabitants and users of a place – influencing projects to different degrees. In other words, the music sheet is co-created by the audience, adding a level of complexity to its making. For Thibaud (2013 19), atmosphere impacts on the role of inhabitants in the composition of territories, and places them at the heart of urban debates: ‘it also helps to demonstrate that city-dwellers contribute to shaping their living environment through their everyday actions. It contributes both to embodiment and empowerment, making the “sensitive” a place of expressi- on of dwelling and the inhabitant an ordinary expert of his living environment.’ Buser (2014) states that affective atmosphere can provide a framework which might lead research to adopt a greater sensitivity to place experience. He calls for a planning practice that take risks, based on experimentation and creativity: ‘This includes a wider consideration of the way bodies (human and non-human) interact and the ways these interactions produce and transform space and 8 Ville de Genève. (unknown date). ‘Zones de rencontre  : Synthèse générale, pistes et recommandations.’