Public Participation and New Urbanism: A Conflicting Agenda?

Abstract

The challenges to public participation in planning are numerous. Inclusive and equitable processes are recognised as an ideal in much planning theory and practice, yet this ideal is increasingly difficult to realise in today's societies that comprise diverse and multiple publics. Within the wider sustainability debate, 'New Urbanism' has emerged as a pragmatic alternative to conventional low-density development. Concomitant with a range of prescribed physical outcomes, the New Urbanism movement advocates a process of 'citizen-based participatory planning and design'. Charrettes, with urban design workshops, are the favoured tools for achieving this goal. However, it is argued that the adherence to a single type of participatory tool can be inconsistent with accepted ideals of participation processes and has several implications. Of particular concern is the role of the charrette planner or facilitator, a figure who has the potential to manipulate the public because of his/her inevitable allegiance to the New Urban agenda. In addition, the examination of a charrette process in a small New Zealand town raises several broader questions about the ability of the approach to address issues of inclusiveness and the recognition of difference, two fundamental elements of good participatory processes.

Is there no urban forestry in the developing world?

“…Engendering participation: Participation in conservation and resource management is widely advocated in rural areas of the developing world, with some pioneering examples of community-based management (Fabricius et al, 2004). Similarly, participation is widely encouraged in urban planning, zonation and environmental issues in the developed world (Bond and Thompson-Fawcett, 2007), with a degree of positive correlation between the level of participation and urban greening outcomes (BaycantLevent and Nijkamp, 2009). There is little doubt of similar benefits in the developing world, but the methods, tools and approaches to engender participation are typically different.…”

Scotland's Approach to Participatory Planning: Characterising the Charrette

“…The second variation observed was participatory project length. As some initiatives assessed continued for several years (Blackstock et al, 2007), others were short-lived targeted exercises delivered in charrette-like fashion (Bond et al, 2007;Hopkins, 2010). Although the charrette format is somewhat predetermined (Walters, 2007), Sanoff (2000), in wider participation literature, describes its variations when adapted to meet different project objectives.…”

“…However, there is a lack of research into the charrette, and some speculation into the efficacy of the model's practical application and democratic commitment (Bond et al, 2007;Grant, 2006;MacLeod, 2013). Since the model was first introduced to Scotland sixty charrettes have been facilitated through the Charrette Mainstreaming Programme (CMP); many generating charrette reports with local strategies for the participating communities (see Appendix A) (Scottish Government, 2015).…”

“…These approaches challenged modernist thinking that valued expert epistemologies, and instead believed knowledge to be something coconstructed; not a collation of ideas but rather that communication has the power to build shared meanings through reasoning and deliberative exchange (Brand et al, 2007;Innes et al, 1999). Equally, the charrette's consensus-seeking nature depends on feedback loops and an iterative dialogue to not only acknowledge perspectives but ultimately create new shared meaning, leading to a widely endorsed strategy (Lennertz, 2003;Sanoff, 2000).However, there is a lack of research into the charrette, and some speculation into the efficacy of the model's practical application and democratic commitment (Bond et al, 2007;Grant, 2006;MacLeod, 2013). Since the model was first introduced to Scotland sixty charrettes have been facilitated through the Charrette Mainstreaming Programme (CMP); many generating charrette reports with local strategies for the participating communities (see Appendix A) (Scottish Government, 2015).…”

Neighbourhood Regeneration at the Grassroots Participation: Incubators’ Co-Creative Process and System

“…universities, consultants, technicians) (Juujärvi, 2013). Nevertheless, the extent, the outcomes, and the methodologies with which urban selforganization can be managed are largely debated (Bond and Thompson-Fawcett, 2007;Campbell and Marshall, 2000;Innes and Booher, 2004;Van Meerkerk et al, 2013). Chaskin and Garg (1997), Chaskin (2003), Chaskin et al (2012), Hasanov and Beaumont (2016), Lepofsky andFraser (2003), andMartin (2004) consider the challenges to put into action urban initiatives from non-governmental actors.…”