A Participatory Planning Mini-Experiment: Students Express Concerns in Planning Negotiations through an Urban Diagnosis Walk

Participatory planning has become an emerging characteristic of contemporary planning best practices. Having evolved since the 1970s, as concern arose of the dangers of top-down planning, it consists of a variety of practical tools planning agencies can use in their scoping process. Particularly useful in uncovering 'insurgent planning histories' (Sandercock, 1998), an example organization that employs such tools is Collectiu Punt 6, an action based in Barcelona, engaging women architects, planners, and activists. Their goal is game-changing for design-related gender discrimination: involve women in the planning process to transform cities to be safer and catered more toward their needs. As with all participatory planning tools, limitations exists, as social structures can impose arbitrary restrictions via 'tokenism' so that ideas are not actualized (Arnstein, 1969). In an undergraduate contemporary planning issues course at my university, we tried out one of these planning tools ourselves to see what we could gain from the experience.

As part of this collaborative planning mini-experiment, we were provided a map of the urban diagnosis walk. For this experience, we would do a round in a select area of our campus and make observations and take photographs as we pleased. The select area of the campus is a rapidly transforming site, with modern, high-rise housing construction being built to accommodate a rising population of mostly international students, as well as other efforts to include more mixed-use development and some public spaces. We were given a list of guiding questions to help facilitate concerning issues of spatial visibility (i.e., components and vegetation), social visuality (i.e., street activity), information (i.e., signage), and "prohibited" spaces (i.e., use and appropriation).

Students insights demonstrated that this tool ought to be used more in the planning process to hear a diverse range of perspectives. For example, some students pointed to the inherent inequities in building  housing using expensive steel-frame construction catered to a small percentage of the population who could afford it. The result is that many local students commute for more than an hour to campus each day. Others wondered about the inadequate signage given the extent of building construction sites. Some asked questions about the frequency of dead zones on the campus; these are places that have potential but due to walls without actual frontage and windows, they become mere passage ways. Another critical observation was whether small bus transit through this area was adequate and also accessible to other needs (i.e., parents with strollers) and how sanitized some parts of the campus were, inhibiting any form of creativity. Cohesive visions for planning for the future demand innovative tools that allow different perspectives to be heard. In this case, students will be the primary users of a space, so why not involve them more? Participatory planning using the urban diagnosis walk could be one such tool at very low cost.

Sources:

Arnstein, Sherry. 1969. "A ladder of citizen participation", American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216- 224

Sanderock, Leonie (Ed). 1998. "Introduction", in Making The Invisible Visible: A Multicultural Planning History. Berkeley: University of California Press.