Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:15:54.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Participatory Urban Planning

from Part II - Participatory Governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2024

By
Daniel G. Cooper
Edited by
Brian D. Christens
Brian D. Christens
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University, Tennessee
Get access

Summary

Comprehensive citywide planning is a practice that many cities undertake regularly. In theory, the principles laid out in citywide plans can help guide the distribution of public and private investments that shape the future development of that city. In recent years, many major cities have been incorporating equity goals and frameworks into planning efforts in attempts to close long-standing racial gaps. Although urban planning, as a field, has espoused goals of participation and shared power in development decisions, power and influence is often concentrated among wealthier households and institutions. Participation in planning processes often involves conflict between opposing interests, and development outcomes are often inequitable. Comprehensive planning has the potential to change some development rules and processes that lead to inequitable outcomes, but this is contingent upon shifting power and influence away from wealthy and elite citizens and institutions. Research on power and empowerment is critical to understanding how influence is manifested through planning policies and processes. The City of Chicago’s “We Will Chicago” plan provides a case example of how city planning processes attempt to engage stakeholders in developing a vision and goals that align with traditionally marginalized groups.

Keywords

comprehensive planningcitywide planningparticipatory planningland usecivic participationequitable developmentNIMBYismequity indicatorsaffordable housing
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Community Empowerment , pp. 241 - 261
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnstein, S. A. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and poverty: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, K., Blandford, B., & Ripy, J. (2011). Planning, technology, and legitimacy: Structured public involvement in integrated transportation and land-use planning in the United States. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 38(3), 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, N. (2010). Understanding community empowerment in urban regeneration and planning in England: Putting policy and practice in context. Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailly, J., & Harris, C. (2020, October 19). Looking back to move forward: Chicago’s planning landscape defined. Metropolitan Planning Council. www.metroplanning.org/news/9947/Looking-back-to-move-forward-Chicagos-planning-landscape-definedGoogle Scholar
Brulle, R. J., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). Environmental justice: Human health and environmental inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnham, D. (2009). Plan of Chicago (centennial ed.). Great Books Foundation.Google Scholar
Chaskin, R. J. (2005). Democracy and bureaucracy in a community planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(4), 408–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chicago Department of Housing. (2021). Racial equity impact assessment: Qualified action plan. City of Chicago. www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/doh/qap/qap_2021/draft_reia_qap.pdfGoogle Scholar
Christens, B. D. (2019). Community power and empowerment. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christens, B. D., & Inzeo, P. T. (2015). Widening the view: Situating collective impact among frameworks for community-led change. Community Development, 46(4), 420–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J., & Koplan, J. P. (2009). Health impact assessment. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(3), 315–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forester, J., & Krumholz, N. (2003). Making equity planning work: Leadership in the public sector. Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Foroughi, M., de Andrade, B., Pereira Rodgers, A., & Wang, T. (2023). Public participation and consensus-building in urban planning from the lens of heritage planning: A systematic literature review. Cities, 135, 104235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, X., Benages-Albert, M., Pavon, D., Ribas, A, Garcia-Aymerich, J., & Vall-Casas, P. (2017). Public participation GIS for assessing landscape values and improvement preferences in urban stream corridors. Applied Geography, 87, 184–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guaraldo Choguill, M. B. (1996). A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries. Habitat International, 20(3), 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurin-Sands, C. (2022, March 21). We Will Chicago: Translating policies into actions through HREIA. Metropolitan Planning Council. www.metroplanning.org/news/10326/We-Will-Chicago-translating-policies-into-actions-through-HREIAGoogle Scholar
Heller, J., Givens, M., Yuen, T., Gould, S., Jandu, M., Bourcier, E., & Choi, T. (2014). Advancing efforts to achieve health equity: Equity metrics for health impact assessment practice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(11), 11054–11064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IAP2. (2018). IAP2 spectrum of public participation. International Association of Public Participation. http://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/Spectrum_8.5x11_Print.pdfGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.Google Scholar
Kuruppu, C., Adhikari, P., Gunarathna, V., Ambalangodage, D., Perera, P., & Karunarathna, C. (2016). Participatory budgeting in a Sri Lankan urban council: A practice of power and domination. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 41, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehtonen, P. (2022). Policy on the move: The enabling settings of participation in participatory budgeting. Policy Studies, 43(5), 1036–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine Einstein, K., Palmer, M., & Glick, D. M. (2018). Who participates in local government? Evidence from meeting minutes. Perspectives on Politics, 17(1), 28–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maantay, J. (2002). Zoning law, health, and environmental justice: What’s the connection? Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 30(4), 572–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacLaran, A., Clayton, V., & Brudell, P. (2018). Empowering communities in disadvantaged urban areas: Towards greater community participation in Irish urban planning? Final report. Palala Press.Google Scholar
Mallach, A. (2018). The divided city: Poverty and prosperity in urban America. Island Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquetti, A., Schonerwald da Silva, C. E., & Campbell, A. (2012). Participatory economic democracy in action: Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, 1989–2004, Review of Radical Political Economics, 44(1), 62–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, D. S., & Rugh, J. (2017). The intersections of race and class: Zoning, affordable housing, and segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas. In Squires, G. D. (Ed.), The fight for fair housing (2nd ed.) (pp. 245–265). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, M. P. (2016). Building the planning consensus: The plan of Chicago, civic boosterism, and urban reform in Chicago, 1893 to 1915. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 75(1), 116–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metropolitan Planning Council. (2020). We Will Chicago: Co-creating an inclusive process. Metropolitan Planning Council. www.metroplanning.org/uploads/cms/documents/peerworkshops_wewillchicago_appendix_new.pdfGoogle Scholar
Metzger, J. (2010). Planned abandonment: The neighborhood life-cycle theory and national urban policy. Housing Policy Debate, 11(1), 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michels, A., & De Graaf, L. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitlin, D. (2021). Editorial: Citizen participation in planning: From the neighbourhood to the city. Environment & Urbanization, 33(2), 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T. H. M., Kesten, J. M., López-López, J. A., Ijaz, S., McAleenan, A., Richards, A., Gray, S., Savović, J., & Audrey, S. (2018). The effects of changes to the built environment on the mental health and well-being of adults: Systematic review. Health and Place, 53(June), 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munster, S., Georgi, C., Heijne, K., Klamert, K., Rainer Noennig, J., Pump, M., Stelzle, B., & van der Meer, H. (2017). How to involve inhabitants in urban design planning by using digital tools? An overview on a state of the art, key challenges and promising approaches. Procedia Computer Science, 112, 2391–2405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Fair Housing Alliance. (2019). Defending against unprecedented attacks on fair housing: 2019 fair housing trends report. National Fair Housing Alliance. https://nationalfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-Trends-Report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Papazekos, T. (2022). Power play goal: Analyzing zoning law and reparations as remedies to historic displacement in Pittsburgh’s Hill District. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 29(3), 407–430.Google Scholar
Payton Scally, C., & Tighe, J. R. (2015). Democracy in action?: NIMBY as impediment to equitable affordable housing siting. Housing Studies, 30(5), 749–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pineo, H., Glonti, K., Rutter, H., Zimmermann, N., Wilkinson, P., & Davies, M. (2018). Urban health indicator tools of the physical environment: A systematic review. Journal of Urban Health, 95(5), 613–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romariz Peixoto, L., Rectem, L., & Pouleur, J. A. (2022). Citizen participation in architecture and urban planning confronted with Arnstein’s ladder: Four experiments into popular neighbourhoods of Hainaut demonstrate another hierarchy. Architecture, 2(1), 114–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, C. L., Leone de Nie, K., Dannenberg, A. L., Beck, L. F., Marcus, M. J., & Barringer, J. (2012). Health impact assessment of the Atlanta Beltline. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(3), 203–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothstein, R. (2014). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Norton.Google Scholar
Sager, T. (2022). Advocacy planning: Were expectations fulfilled? Planning Perspectives, 37(6), 1205–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shertzer, A., Twinam, T., & Walsh, R. P. (2018). Zoning and the economic geography of cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 105, 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, R. M., Louis Taylor, H. Jr., Yin, L., & Miller, C. (2019). Are we still going through the empty ritual of participation? Inner-city residents’ and other grassroots stakeholders’ perceptions of public input and neighborhood revitalization. Critical Sociology, 46(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
Sirianni, C. (2007). Neighborhood planning as collaborative democratic design: The case of Seattle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4), 373–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. (2006). The plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the remaking of the American city. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speer, P. W. (2008). Social power and forms of change: Implications for psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(2), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trounstine, J. (2016). Segregation and inequality in public goods. American Journal of Political Science, 60(3), 709–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trounstine, J. (2018). Segregation by design: Local politics and inequality in American cities. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN-Habitat. (2018). SDG indicator 11.3.2 training module: Civic participation in urban planning and management. United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-Habitat). https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2021/08/indicator_11.3.2_training_module_civic_participation.pdfGoogle Scholar
Urbano, J. (2016). The Cerdà plan for the expansion of Barcelona: A model for modern city planning, Focus: The Journal of Planning Practice and Education, 12(1), 13.Google Scholar
Walz, K., & Fron, P. (2018). The color of power: How local control over the siting of affordable housing shapes America. DePaul Journal for Social Justice, 12(1), 3.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×