The ‘structure plans’ in Brussels: from participatory planning to urban governance, a first assessment about a new tool

Abstract

This paper analyses the changes resulting from the use of a new tool in urban policies in Brussels, the schéma directeur (structure plan). We especially examine whether the new procedure has concretely achieved some of its major objectives: firstly, improving coordination of public action at different levels of authority; secondly, building real consensus with private partners; and thirdly, reinforcing democratic participation. Based on a collective empirical study devoted to the first implementations of the new procedure in the cases of four urban projects, this article also integrates some major elements of the theoretical debates about new modes of governance and the development of participatory and deliberative democracy, in order to clarify the meanings of some fuzzy notions frequently used either by researchers or actors. The authors argue that the new practices that characterize the structure plan, including promises of increased participation in a new type of governance, do not actually enhance people's involvement. To conclude, a partial failure is diagnosed with regard to the structure plan's initial ambitions.

Urban participatory planning approaches in capital cities: the Lisbon case

“…Participatory planning has been established in several countries in recent decades, and mostly state-driven (Harrison et al, 2021;Rogers, 2016), which acknowledges the existence of social groups with different perspectives and needs, is an essential counterpart of rational planning (Cameron & Grant-Smith, 2005). By providing meaningful opportunities for local communities to deal directly with crucial planning issues (Friendly, 2019) participatory planning opens an avenue to a more decentralized and deliberative democratic process (Damurski & Oleksy, 2018). Likewise, this process enables planners and policy-makers to better understand the activity patterns within territories (Fouracre et al, 2006), despite the challenges involved in this process (Damay & Delmotte, 2010).…”

“…By providing meaningful opportunities for local communities to deal directly with crucial planning issues (Friendly, 2019) participatory planning opens an avenue to a more decentralized and deliberative democratic process (Damurski & Oleksy, 2018). Likewise, this process enables planners and policy-makers to better understand the activity patterns within territories (Fouracre et al, 2006), despite the challenges involved in this process (Damay & Delmotte, 2010).…”

“…In this framework, sound urban governance processes stipulate that urban data can be made available to business and citizens for enhancing decision making (Hemmersam et al, 2015). Another key point to note is the need to acknowledge the social diversity and different age and cultural backgrounds of potential participants, which requires the selection of appropriate and inclusive public samples (Cameron & Grant-Smith, 2005), which is never an easy process (Damay & Delmotte, 2010).…”

“…Indeed, Cameron and Grant-Smith (2005) argue that consultation forums and decision-making processes are far from being neutral and universal. Analogous ideas emerge about the limitations to linking participatory planning processes with official legal procedures and the production of highquality spatial solutions (Damurski & Oleksy, 2018). Other critics have delved more deeply into the lack of tools to assess the effectiveness of participatory planning processes (Nadin et al, 2020).…”