Participative Planning Processes in the Absence of the (Public) Space of Democracy [Planning...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Palermo]On: 21 September 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 921208697]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Practice and ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713442503

Participative Planning Processes in the Absence of the (Public) Space ofDemocracyGiulia Bonafede; Francesco Lo Piccolo

Online publication date: 20 September 2010

To cite this Article Bonafede, Giulia and Lo Piccolo, Francesco(2010) 'Participative Planning Processes in the Absence ofthe (Public) Space of Democracy', Planning Practice and Research, 25: 3, 353 — 375To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2010.503430URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.503430

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713442503

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.503430

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

ARTICLE

Participative Planning Processes in theAbsence of the (Public) Space ofDemocracyGIULIA BONAFEDE & FRANCESCO LO PICCOLO

Abstract

This article aims to investigate the role, limits and opportunities of participation programmes in alocal political context where consensus-building and inclusionary practices are not high priorities.A public housing neighbourhood in Palermo is used as a case study in order to critically highlight

the ambiguous role that participative practices tend to play in fragile contexts. The case studyalso highlights the need for some preconditions for effective participatory practices in planning.These preconditions are focused on Arendt’s notion of the ‘space of democracy’. Some concepts

developed by Hannah Arendt will be used to explain the necessity of these preconditions, and theirrelevance to the political discourses of participatory planning processes will be discussed.

Introduction

In the past two or three decades, Habermas’ conception of consensus as crucial tothe nature of rational communication has become centrally important in what hasbeen defined the communicative turn in planning theory (Healey, 1993). In orderto reshape planning practices on the basis of an inclusionary approach, Healey(1997) considers Habermasian communicative ethics a valuable conceptualresource, from which follows the ethical challenge of building up inclusionaryprocesses. Both Forester (1989, 1999, 2005) and Healey (1997)—as well as manyothers following the discursive approach, such as Innes (1995, 1996), Innes andBooher (1999) or Fischer and Forrester (1993)—refer to planning processes wherethe phases of consultation and participation (however stakeholders are selectedand involved) are significant or at least formally unavoidable. Moreover, in thesecontexts (and in the eyes of the above-mentioned authors), consensus-building iscrucial, whatever the actual degree of inclusion. In this theoretical framework, theprinciple of inclusionary communicative ethics is strictly linked to the issue ofconsensus-building, whether it is interpreted in a strictly institutional or a radicalway. Recent literature has in many ways questioned this.

Giulia Bonafede, Dipartimento Storia e Progetto nell’Architettura, Universita degli Studi diPalermo, Corso Vittorio Emanuele 188, 90133 Palermo, Italy. Email: [email protected] L. Piccolo, Dipartimento Citta e Territorio, Universita degli Studi di Palermo, via deiCartari 19b, 90133 Palermo, Italy. Email: [email protected]

Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 25, No. 3,pp. 353–375, June 2010

ISSN 0269-7459 print/1360-0583 online/10/030353–23 � 2010 Taylor & Francis 353DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2010.503430

Downloaded By: [University of Palermo] At: 12:46 21 September 2010

Hillier (2003) analyses the Habermasian concept of rational consensus formationand its fallibility, describing the possibilities of the permanence of conflict, non-reciprocity, domination and the related power-games that are inherent in planningdecision-making. Brand and Gaffikin (2007, p. 288), while recognizing collaborativeplanning’s inherent impulse for grassroots or inclusivedemocracy that can ‘give voiceto the voiceless’, drawmore attention to gender issues, ethnic diversity or the needs ofdisabled people, and thus make a significant distinction from the advocacy approachof Davidoff (1965) and Freire (1972), which tried to mobilize sufficient discursivecounter-power to the prevailing powers. Post-modern literature highlights the subjectpositions of participants and officials in the processes of participation, while manyscholars (Sandercock, 1998, 2003; Fincher & Jacobs, 1998; Sibley, 1995; Milroy,1992) consider—from different perspectives and theoretical frameworks—thefragmented nature of contemporary society and show a new attention todifference(s) in the interaction of groups and individuals in the public discourse.Watson (2006) raises somequestionson thepredominant attentiononprocesses ratherthan on outcomes in the planning debate, and on the assumption that such processescan be guided by a universal set of deontological values, shaped by the liberaltradition, in a world dominated by deepening differences and inequalities. Thesearguments highlight the role of policy changes and modes of governance ininfluencing the level of inclusion anddemocracy in theplanningfield.By identifying aseries of gaps in the radical planning literature,Beard (2003) suggests that this literaturehas not yet addressed how planning as social transformation evolves in restrictivepolitical environments; such a gap (or negligence) is also applicable to communicativeplanning theory. If the practice of collaborative planning is also characterized by areconsiderationof conflicts as ‘creative tensions’ (Brand&Gaffikin, 2007,p. 288),whatabout those contexts where conflicts are eluded, implicit or drained (i.e. devoid of theiroppositional power)? Moreover, what is the role and potential of the participativeplanningprocesses in the absence of a (physical andmetaphorical) space of democracy?Howcancommunicativeethicsbeappliedwhenconsensus-building isnot apriority andthe notion of public interest is hardly ever considered in the political agenda?The case study that will be illustrated in the article shows such a context,

where—in the recent past —deprived communities have passively accepted,without expressing any particular form of organized protest and/or conflict,policies that either confirm their inferior status or that fail to address their needs infavour of the deregulation and privatization of the public realm. This article aimsto investigate the role, limits and opportunities of social networks and participativepractices in a devolutionary context and in a local political culture that does nothave consensus-building (or inclusionary policies) high on its agenda. In such acontext, the article will describe the tension between different policy options andthe ambiguous relationships between the actors in a process characterized bydifferent participatory experiences; those promoted by the institutional sector aswell as by a network of associations including the local university. A highlycontroversial urban area, the ZEN1 public housing neighbourhood in Palermo, isused as a case study in order to critically analyse the ambiguous role thatparticipative practices tend to play in a fragile context characterized by blight,social marginality and forms of Mafia organization. This case study is also used toverify some hypotheses concerning the necessity of various preconditions or the

354

Giulia Bonafede & Francesco Lo Piccolo


implementation of effective inclusionary practices within participation. In addition,the paper addresses some of the rhetoric and ambiguities surrounding the concept ofinclusionary participative practices, as well as outlining some essential preconditionsfor building up efficient participative planning processes in situations where the publicinterest and consensus-building receive a low policy priority.

Consensus-building versus the Reconstruction of the Public Space

Lo Piccolo (2008) has previously framed some of the questions and reflectionsoutlined above in the light of communicative rationality and ethics. Forester (1989,1999) also addresses the issue of communicative ethics, and further elements ofreflection are developed by Healey (1997, 1998) regarding the inclusive process ofcommunicative ethics. Also, in Innes (1995, 1996) as well as in Innes and Booher(1999) the concept of communicative rationality, as described in Habermas (1981,1989), gives an epistemological and ethical framework for guiding and constructingconsensus-building, where it is defined as ‘an array of practices in whichstakeholders, selected to represent different interests, come together for face-to-face,long-term dialogue to address a policy issue of common concern’ (Innes & Booher,1999, p. 412). On the other hand, Watson (2006, p. 32) deeply questions the faith inthe consensus-seeking process as the sole informant of decision-making, citing herconcern for the neglect of outcomes in favour of the promotion of democratic andinclusive processes in contexts of deepening differences. While Hillier (2003, p. 41)highlights that ‘empirical research from planning practice (e.g. Flyvbjerg, 1998;McGuirk, 2001; Pløger, 2004; Tewdwr-Jones and Thomas, 1998) is increasinglydemonstrating [that] the ideals of communicative rationality and consensus formationare rarely achieved’. Reviews of some of these critiques and replies to variouscriticisms are presented, amongst others, in Healey (2003) and Innes (2004), whileassessments of positive outcomes of the collaborative approach and citizeninvolvement can be found, for example, in Burby (2003) and in Gunton et al. (2003).Lo Piccolo (2008) raised a question on an issue that appears to be neglected or

only partially considered within the recent planning debate: how can the principles(and practices) of communicative ethics be applied where planning processes donot have consensus-building as a priority in their agenda? The case studyillustrated below precisely reflects this situation. In such a context, and in the lightof our reflections on present and past research activities in other settings insouthern Italy and elsewhere that do not mirror the communicative ‘ideal’, theemerging priority is more related to the rebuilding of ‘political space’ than toconsensus-building. In the light of our case study and experiences, we do not seeconsensus as illusory, as it can still be considered an ‘ideal’ to be reached;however, some preconditions are unavoidably required. Consensus-buildingimplies, in fact, the existence of political spaces where conflicts can fully takeplace and agreements emerge through discursive and dialogic approaches. In orderto illustrate our considerations on this issue, we will use some concepts asdeveloped by Hannah Arendt (1958, 2005), applying them to the politicaldiscourse in participatory planning processes.In this approach, a substantial precondition for any form of consensus-building

is the existence of political spaces such as Arendt’s idea of a discursive and active

355

Participative Planning Processes


‘infra-space’. This exists among equal individuals freely debating, because of theiremancipation by primary life needs (e.g. housing, water and work) and their abilityto build up their political role and autonomy through the emancipation processitself. Wherever this active and conversational freedom is lacking, a properpolitical space does not exist (Arendt, 2005). According to Arendt (2005), thepublic space of democracy can be defined as the ambit where all the discursiveissues can show up their many-sidedness and people can freely show up their ownplurality by acting on and expressing their plural opinions. Thus, the public spaceof democracy coincides with the political space of freedom. The sense, but not theaim, of politics is the freedom of plurality; therefore understanding a politicalsituation means acknowledging a large framework of different viewpoints andpositions from which the situation can be considered and judged. Far from fallingback on a nostalgic model of democracy—that is, the Ancient Greek polis—Arendt considers that the acquisition of this ability to see things from differentviewpoints (grounded in the tangible space of the agora and within the concretewalls of the polis and its normal limits) has been crucial for the polis and thesubsequent development of the western democracy. Where the tangible space ofthe agora and the metaphorical space of democracy do not exist, there is nopolitical space. Transferring this concept to debates on planning, there is no spacefor dialogue and, consequently for communicative (and inclusionary) planningpractices, without these preconditions. In Arendt’s words, political space isactually founded on human plurality.

Plurality is the condition of human action because we are all the same,that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyoneelse who ever lived, lives, or will live. (Arendt, 1958, p. 8)

Through speech and actions, people reveal actively their unique personal identity,as well as making their appearance in the human world, considered as a humanartefact and a web of relationships (Arendt, 2005, p. 167). Hence, as Arendtemphasizes, political action is the human ability to act in concert, and power isnever an individual property. In other words, the political space is a common spacewhere the invisible thoughts become visible and the actions become also‘initiatives’ (Arendt, 1958, p. 177). ‘Initiatives’, according to Arendt, can beachieved and completed only with the help of the others and in our analysisplanning practices can be included under this heading. Without the existence of a(common) space—both physical and metaphorical—initiatives fail or do not eventake place (Arendt, 1958). In planning terms, without a (common) place of debatethere is no space (that is also efficacy) for participative planning processes,because of the patronizing attitude of the political actors and the subjugatedcondition of all the other actors.In this analysis, citizens, in order to make themselves available for political

affairs, must free themselves of political prejudices and of the primary necessitiesof life. The former (political prejudices) are anchored in pre-existing and fossilizedvalue judgements that hamper the free dialogue (often deliberately nourished bymedia, political parties and social groups). The latter (primary necessities of life)falls into the private spaces of housework duties and primary rights of citizenship,

356



which are so often intentionally neglected by politicians, as they are interested inmaintaining the deprived status of communities as a fertile terrain for electoralcampaigns. Therefore in order to allow people to freely and independentlyparticipate in democratic (public) life, and consequently in the decision-makingprocess, a pre-condition is necessary. This pre-condition is the public recognitionof primary needs and rights in the name of a ‘basic’ notion of the public interest.

The ZEN Case: An Overview

This absence of a truly ‘public space’ is what occurs to some extent in the ZENcontext in Palermo. It has to be recognized that a collaborative approach(involving citizen–institution relationships) has never been followed in modernSicilian history, or in Palermo. Instead patronage and subjection has alwaysprevailed, with the rare occasions of civic participation2 being just mereexceptions, quickly forgotten (Cannarozzo, 2000). In recent times, localcommunities have been informed and listened to only in the service of particularmeans and not in order to get a real social understanding that would serve as thebasis for a participatory democracy. On the other hand, a kind of politicalconsensus has emerged through patronage and the exploitation of the marginalcondition of some fringes of local society; high levels of unemployment or lowstandards of education do not foster a critical debate and enable residents to besubjected to the persuasive influence of the media and the discourses of powerfulgroups. Within this context, Palermo’s ZEN story is an intriguing example of theproblems affecting peripheral public housing areas in southern Italy with respect toinclusionary and exclusionary planning practices. In fact, the ZEN neighbourhoodembodies the marginality that characterizes many public housing projects insouthern Italy.The neighbourhood itself was built in the far North of the territory of Palermo in

a series of phases between the late 1950s and the 1980s: first, the Borgo Pallavicino,completed in 1958; second, the ZEN 1 district (1967 – 1978); and third, the mostwell known, the ZEN 2 district, built during the 1980s after a national architecturalcompetition launched in 1970 (Figure 1). Ignoring connections with thesurrounding rural areas and the historical villas of the Piana dei Colli (an ancientarea of citrus orchards), the ZEN 2 project followed an orthogonal system,consisting of three parallel lines of insulae (the basic residential blocks), crossingthree rows of common facilities (Figures 2 and 3). However, a series ofbankruptcies among the building firms working on this area caused delays, and anumber of modifications meant that the final project varied substantially from theoriginal to safeguard the historical rural villas, to include pre-existing industry and,above all, to align the whole plan to new norms of service requirements (Sciascia,2003). Despite this, the provision of services was largely ignored in practice; infact, according to an overall estimate, there is a deficit in facilities (includingschools, gardens and leisure facilities, social and cultural facilities) of 11.13 squaremetres per inhabitant. Only 6.87 square metres per inhabitant is provided,compared with the national guidelines of 18 square metres.3

The ZEN project was realized in successive phases, modified in progress, lackedservices and was unconnected with the surrounding area (according to its

357



designers’ utopian intentions). Nowadays, largely due to private investment, semi-rural sprawl surrounds and dominates the neighbourhood. A district highwayencircles the ZEN, forcing inhabitants to stay in a virtual gated community wherethe choice to belong is determined by the exclusive need to have a house, even byillegal means (Figure 4). This illegal occupation of ZEN housing units has to beset in the wider context of the evolution of the ‘struggle for housing’ in Palermo.This struggle began in 1968 and continued throughout the 1970s. Illegaloccupation, which, in common with many other public housing projects, occurredeven before the housing units had been completed and declared habitable, is even

FIGURE 1. Location of the ZEN neighbourhood on the North area of Palermo in 1970.

FIGURE 2. The ZEN 2 project (1970).

358



more significant in the ZEN neighbourhood, since it affects about 70% of thehousing units actually built. If we take the planned number of housing units, whichvaries depending on the source consulted (Sciascia, 2003; Bonafede & Lo Piccolo,2007), and exclude those never built at all and those that have been burnt down, itseems feasible to state that only about 2% of ZEN housing units have beenallocated according to the rules.In addition to the history that characterizes this public housing neighbourhood,

in recent years the problems have increased with respect to, on the one hand,fertile but fragmented ‘bottom-up’ social practices and, on the other hand, theestablishment of controversial forms of negotiated planning by private investors.Also the municipal administration, against a general background of long-termindifference and, essentially, absence, proposed initiatives that refer to the modelsand the rationale of negotiation (Lo Piccolo and Schilleci, 2005). However, these

FIGURE 3. Public spaces and services as expected in the ZEN 2 project (1970).

FIGURE 4. Aerial photo of the ZEN neighbourhood at present.

359



models remain separate from local social and economic circumstances and haveproved to be inadequate and unable to address residents’ priority needs.In addition, the socio-demographic structure of the area is characterized by a

population mainly of working age with high rates of unemployment, unusuallyhigh illiteracy rates and low levels of secondary education compared with the restof the municipal area. At the same time the high drop-out rates in local schools,which involve the youngest age groups at high social risk (Mattina, 2007), fuel ademand for personal assistance services. The deficit of services and publicgathering places, along with the precarious health and sanitation conditions andthe lack of primary infrastructure, undermine any—already weak—feeling ofinclusion in the civitas that residents might experience (Figure 5). A high levelof poverty is the distinguishing feature of the ZEN community (mainly composedof the urban sub-proletariat), together with the precarious state in which peoplefind themselves as a result of the lack of jobs, stable housing and access toeducation and information. This has produced a particularly complex relationshipbetween social and housing exclusion (Mattina, 2007). The illegal allocation andoccupation of the housing units along with the lack of basic facilities for the localcommunity and the fact that the local political administration is contaminated bythe actions of the Mafia, have helped create specific living conditions in the Zenneighbourhood. To add to this the primary infrastructure, most notably the waterand sewage networks, is completely inadequate and the illegal occupation of theZEN housing units has triggered a vicious circle of conflicts of responsibilitybetween the Autonomous Institute of Public Housing (IACP), the public watercompany (AMAP) and the City Council. The ‘implicit’ project—in the absence ofthe necessary public intervention—is evident: to keep inhabitants in a permanentsubjugated status in order to exploit and manipulate them during electoralcampaigns. We only need to consider the arrangements for the residential water

FIGURE 5. The ‘central space’ of the ZEN neighbourhood at present: decay and absence of publicspaces.

360



supply, notoriously delivered by illegal private companies, and the promises ofjobs and ‘amnesties’ for people occupying housing units illegally. Such promisesare announced in the run-up to elections and are intertwined with acts ofvandalism and illegal trafficking, in which the sub-renting as well as the purchaseand sale of public property by private parties are usual. The ZEN neighbourhood isbeing transformed into a segregated frontier land, where anyone crossing theborder-line comes from conditions of social disadvantage and openly proclaimedillegality, and so has nothing to lose; thus, spatial boundaries are in part moralboundaries, as the spatial separation symbolizes the established moral order(Sibley, 1995, p. 39).

The Participative Process: A Narrative

In this context, participation has taken a number of forms. In response to the lackof services and to the residents’ unexpressed demands, fragmentary but fertilesocial initiatives4 link unexpected forms of solidarity through innovative methods(Fava, 2007). At the same time, ambiguous municipal policies propose traditionalmodels of urban marketing, camouflaged by participative values, that tend tofrustrate the possible inclusion of the most vulnerable and at-risk groups. We willhere describe the clash between so different participative approaches as a series ofconsequential phases in a whole process, in order to test the existing spacefor public dialogue or at least the potentialities for its progressive enlargement(Table 1).The first phase consists of negotiation between the public administration and

private investors, while the local community and its real needs remain indistinctlyin the background. In this phase the public administration tried to obtain consensusamong from the local community through obsolete, top-down and vagueparticipative methods. The opening of negotiation practices focusing on theZEN neighbourhood dates back to 1999 when Palermo City Council’s PlanningDepartment, with the consultancy of Ecosfera,5 drew up a Local DevelopmentPartnership Programme (known as Integrated Intervention Programme [PII]) underLaw 179/1992. It is important to highlight that, in order to obtain public funds, theLaw required the synergy between public and private interventions, supported byparticipative methods, which in this case simply resulted in the definition ofgeneral objectives and the presentation of the final plan in public meetings. ThePII’s declared task was to address the conditions of physical, planning and socialdecay in the public housing project through a programme divided into fourobjectives. In reality, these were not actual objectives, but wide-ranging, vaguethematic areas, as can be deduced from the language used: the use of the everyday(sic); civil life; urban and environmental quality; urban dignity and recogniz-ability.Such thematic areas should have corresponded to a coordinated series of public

and private interventions on primary and secondary infrastructures as well as onthe restoration of conditions of legality as regards the occupation of the houses. Inreality, private investors concentrated their interventions on private sport andleisure complexes, tourist settlements, trading centres, private centres for theelderly and private residential buildings, whereas the planned public interventions

361



362

Table

1:Diagram

oftheprocessdescribedin

thecase

study

Phase

Actors

Objectiv

esActions

Participativeapproach

Results

11City

Council

administration(M

ayor,

localp

oliticians,public

officialsandplanners)

2Privateinvestors

3Localresidents(inthe

indistinctbackground)

Tofig

htthephysicaland

socialdecayof

the

neighbourhood.

The

PII(Integrated

Interventio

nProgramme)

isdraw

nup.T

hePII

identifi

esfour

(vague)

them

aticareasof

public

andprivateinterventio

ns.

Presentatio

nof

thePIIin

publicdebates.

Privateinitiatives

onthe

fringesof

the

neighbourhood.

21City

Council

administration(M

ayor,

localp

oliticians,public

officialsandplanners)

2Prim

aryandhigher

educationinstitu

tions:

prim

aryandinterm

ediate

school

teachers,

University

researchers

3Localsocialandsanitary

units

4Youth

CrimePreventio

nUnit

5Localassociations

6The

localC

hurchand

otherreligious

associations

7So

meresidentsas

individuals

Toestablishan

effective

listening

andinteraction

practices

with

local

residents.

Toprovideforp

ublic

spaces

andfacilities,also

inordertoreconnectthe

neighbourhoodwith

the

restof

thecity.

The

Inter-Institu

tional

Network(RI)is

establishedby

actors

from

2to6.Criticismsto

thePIIcontents.The

idea

ofaparticipative

workshopislaunched

anddiscussed.

Publicmeetin

gsand

debates.Fo

cusgroups

andinterviewswith

residentsas

prelim

inary

activ

ities

forthe

workshop.

The

RIrequirestheform

alengagemento

fthe

SchoolofArchitectureof

theUniversity

ofPalerm

oin

ordertohave

acultu

rally

significant

alleyto

prom

otethe

participativeworkshop.

(contin

ued)



363

Table

1:(Contin

ued)

Phase

Actors

Objectiv

esActions

Participativeapproach

Results

31The

RI

2The

Mayor

3City

Councilofficialsand

planners

4The

University

team

from

theSchool

ofArchitecture

Toprepareandorganize

the

workshop.

Meetin

gsto

preparethe

workshop.Contentsand

methods

arevehemently

debated.Actors2and3

tryto

discreditthe

associations

asinterpretersof

social

demands.

Participativeworkshopor

architectural

competition?

Public

meetin

gstodiscussthese

twooptio

ns.

Interactivedialogue

asa

consequenceof

different

view

pointsandmethods.

Antith

eticalobjectives

andopposedpositio

nsem

erge.

41So

memem

bersof

theRI

2The

University

team

from

theSchool

ofArchitecture

3So

meotherm

embersof

theRI

4City

Councilofficialsand

planners

Toorganize

theworkshop

asaparticipative

planning

processwith

localresidentsinorderto

deeply

discussagainand

modifythePII.

Toorganize

theworkshop

asan

architectural

competitionin

orderto

implem

entand

improve

thePIIthrough

aseriesof

architecturalprojects

Meetin

gsto

defin

ethe

workshopprogram.

Criticismsto

theproposals

byactors1and2.Actors

4focustheirattentionon

theim

minentelectoral

campaign.

Bottom-uppractices

with

adirectinvolvem

ento

flocalresidents.

None.The

instrumentaluse

oftheRIand

the

University

asa(or

accordingto

a?)

tokenisticparticipatory

approach.

Actors1and2assumean

autonomous,

independentrole,

prom

otingresearch

activ

ities.

The

City

Counciltriesto

assumealeadingroleof

intheinitiative.Todate,

theworkshophasnotyet

takenplace.



concerned road junctions, gardens in the central public space, two open spaces forsport, a not-well-identified facility for the neighbourhood, maintenance of theroofs of a limited number of residential buildings and the sewage system and thewater supply. Notwithstanding its declaration in principle of a priority role forpublic initiatives, the PII essentially favoured a number of private initiatives on thefringes of the neighbourhood. However, it failed to tackle or in any way resolvethe area’s state of marginality and decline and its difficult living conditions (Figure6). Although the PII report and the presentations in public debates by technicalexperts from the administration referred frequently to vaguely defined participa-tory practices, the actual planning content of the programme has been criticizedand contested by numerous associations operating in the neighbourhood for itslack of provision for public spaces and services.The second phase can be considered a progressive attempt to explore a different

method of involving local residents in a really participative method. It is aconsequence of the local associations’ reactive criticism of the first-phase results.In this second phase, the Inter-Institutional Network (RI) of associations is set up

364

FIGURE 6. The PII: location of public and private interventions.



in the ZEN neighbourhood. The RI, established in 2005, is made up of localassociations working to fight social exclusion, together with religiousassociations, primary and secondary schools, university researchers, and publicinstitutions such as the Local Sanitary Unit, the Local Social Service and theYouth Crime Prevention Unit. The mission of the network is to establisheffective listening and interaction practices with the community and with thesocial agencies operating in the neighbourhood. Within this frame of activities,the RI had the priority of redefining and up-dating the old PII, in order torespond effectively to social demands and real needs. To achieve this goal, theRI looked at participative approaches and identified a workshop as the mostappropriate solution. This proposal, formally agreed to by the Mayor of Palermoin July 2006 but essentially disregarded (and perhaps also misunderstood) as thesituation evolved, should have been formalized in a neighbourhood workshoppromoted by the City Council. In this phase, some preliminary activities werevoluntarily promoted by the RI, such as focus groups and interviews withresidents. Meanwhile, the RI sought the formal engagement of the School ofArchitecture of the University of Palermo in the process. It was hoped that theresearchers’ intellectual autonomy would guarantee greater freedom of speechand action.In the third phase, the RI acted as a mediator for the inhabitants’ interests and

as a stakeholder in itself. Notwithstanding the different viewpoints, methods andvalues amongst its members, the RI aimed to achieve a greater coherencebetween interventions and local needs, according to a scale of priorities differentfrom that of the City Council. Consequently, the RI asked for help from theuniversity staff members, given their expertise in advocacy and participativeplanning activities. This phase is focused on the neighbourhood workshoporganization.Formally invited by the RI to participate in the organization and implementation

of the neighbourhood workshop, the School of Architecture enlisted a group ofresearchers interested in participative planning issues (Bonafede, 2008). Duringthe meeting preparing the workshop and through the definition of their positions,the associations and the university team attempted to build a public space; that isto make public the several interests in the area, including those represented by theCity Council and criticized by the local community. Very soon, however, anattempt by the City Council representatives to delegitimize this involvement and togenerally undermine the declared participative approach of the workshop clearlyemerged. The City Council representatives tried not only to exclude the universityteam and its proposed method for resident involvement but also to discredit theassociations’ activities. At the same time the City Council, instead of providing forbasic infrastructure and solving the problem of the illegal occupation of housing,approved a plan of private speculation that brought about the destruction of an areaof great historic and environmental value, previously earmarked for a public park.That plan included a commercial mall with a huge car park and other privatestructures for sport and leisure that were not accessible to local residents, due totheir low incomes.Such different conceptions of the public interest, and of the means to achieve it,

necessarily affected the workshop organization. The key points of conflict

365



included the community’s many criticisms of the private projects and theinefficiency of the public interventions and the council’s view of the residentinvolvement as tainted by the Mafia. While the university team and the localassociations felt the participation of residents would have assured more connectionwith and sensitivity to local knowledge and needs, by using the Mafia deterrent theCity Council representatives considered the inhabitants’ involvement ineffectiveor even dangerous, and they tried to discredit the associations by questioning theircapacity to carry out their role as the interpreters of social demands. Trying toavoid the criticisms of the City Council, the associations claimed their innovativeapproaches to participation mainly focused on interactive dialogue as a way ofenhancing responsibility and nourishing awareness amongst inhabitants. Theuniversity research group welcomed the challenge to be the expert supporters ofthe associations and aimed to reveal the local knowledge and interests of the mostdisadvantaged inhabitants.Finally, in phase four—as a result of different viewpoints and methods—

opposing objectives and positions emerged. Following a series of preparatoryinquiries, informative phases and public debates, the workshop programmeproposed by the university team envisaged the organization of small workinggroups consisting of residents, members of the associations, university researchersand public officials, which could have brought together a range of professionalcompetences and experience. The aim was to redesign the public interest withinthe neighbourhood and to reshape the corresponding spatial and socialinterventions to bring about a new reality, within the framework of a restoredlegality, free from Mafia domination. The aim was also to nourish inhabitants’‘sense of ownership’ of the interventions, thus guaranteeing the longer-term careof public spaces by precluding the vandalism that previously afflicted theneighbourhood. These goals were considered to be unobtainable withoutconsensus-building and bottom-up practices, which themselves required therebuilding of public space as an essential precondition.Although such a strategy was supported by different members of the RI, the

City Council focused its attention on the imminent electoral campaign. In fact, theworkshop programme could have been used as an effective piece of electionpropaganda for the neighbourhood and the rest of the city. However, during thefollowing meetings, although the City Council was expected to approve theproposal for including information phases and more direct resident involvementwithin the workshop schedule, it instead revealed its true intention was merely toorganize an architectural competition for professional figures, thereby coming intoopen conflict with the associations and the university team. Even if localassociations pushed for the alternative process, there was insufficient time beforethe election to implement it. As a result, the workshop has, to date, not taken place,in spite of the numerous preparatory meetings and the initial involvement of theSchool of Architecture of the University of Palermo: an involvement that hasnever been formalized by the City Council. Also in terms of the long-term capacityfor participation, despite the initial involvement of the Palermo City Council andthe RI, the research working group with the involvement of some students,residents, and associations has ended up assuming an autonomous, independentrole as the advocate for participation (Lo Piccolo et al., 2008).

366



Framing the Story

In the absence of any direct resident involvement, there is a clear risk thatexcessively mediated (or distorted) participatory planning practices will onceagain be proposed. At the same time, the municipal administration’s declaredintention of opening a negotiating table with the RI masks its intention to obtainconsensus on its bargain with private investors. This would be publicized in themedia and disguised by participatory values, and would run counter to the fertileexperimentation practices that could give rise to the inclusion of the mostvulnerable and high-risk segments of the population. We are therefore witnessinga failure to fulfil social and political obligations with respect to one of the mostfragile and disadvantaged areas of the city.This story-telling raises some questions: who are the inhabitants and why do

they not appear in the public arena? The answers are complex: some inhabitantsplay the role assigned by the media, others are not interested in the public spherebecause of their unsatisfied primary needs, and others are simply subjugated by theMafia. As a consequence, they are seldom given the opportunity to voice theirexperiences, stories, needs and desires, due to multiple factors of mainstreamdisengagement, which are social, economic, linguistic, cultural and spatial. If theprimary services within the ZEN neighbourhood are not provided according to thecommon rules and practices of the rest of the city, then ZEN residents are actuallyconsidered outside the law. They cannot leave the protection of the family sphereor Mafia control. Consequently, they do not assert themselves into the publicsphere because by doing so they would declare themselves to be outside sharedlaws. In effect, ZEN residents cannot appear in the public light.6 This is why in theassociations’ agenda one of the priorities is to restore legal conditions. This alsohighlights the city administration’s predominant interest in keeping the ZENresidents in a permanent state of exclusion (Fava, 2007), to stop them entering thepolitical arena and to use them as a subjugated underclass in order to be exploitedonly during electoral campaigns.This story provides a good example of, and test for, Arendt’s ideas. If political

action is the human ability to act in concert, and power is never an individualproperty, a space of power (i.e. a political space) can be realized only where wordsand actions support each other. That is, where actions are not brutal anddestructive (as are the Mafia ones), and words are not used to hide the reality (asthose here used by the City Council), but rather to establish relationships and tocreate new realities (Arendt, 1958, pp. 200 – 201). On the contrary, the privatesphere, beyond its unalienable personal dimension, is generally the space of familycoercion, or at least of lack of freedom, because it is characterized by rulers andruled subjects rather than by equals, and it is based on traditional customs ratherthan on the rights to act equally and speak in front of the law. Moreover, accordingto Arendt, tyrannical regimes are characterized by the dissolution of the web ofrelationships created by acting together, as well as by sharing words and actions.In tyrannies, power (considered as something that keeps the public sphere alive) islost, while fear and violence push people back into private spaces. In this case,power—considered a potentiality among people—turns into an omnipotent desireto dominate (Arendt, 2005).

367



These essential references to Arendt’s ideas are appropriate in the ZENdimension because of some practical issues:

. The private sphere is strongly hierarchic and controlled by family clans, andprivate spaces are mostly isolated from each other due to the nature of thearchitecture of the housing units, which consists of a rigid orthogonal systemof long and narrow blocks, called insulae. The web of relationships amongclans is ruled by the concept of domination and thus it can be compared withtyrannical regimes.

. In spite of its origins in the political traditions of the 1970s, which represent tosome extent the inhabitants’ heroic claims for housing, most of the residents ofthe ZEN public housing neighbourhood today reveal strong prejudices againstpolitics. Both the claiming of rights and the prejudice against politics aremanipulated by the Mafia.

. The ZEN condition which is characterized by a lack of services and publicplaces (which are the foundations of ‘political space’), creates a deep dividebetween political representatives and citizens, increasing the sense of exclusionfrom the civitas.

. Local associations and school institutions represent the only links betweenpublic officials and inhabitants apart from the Mafia. However theseassociations struggle for finance and long term survival (Armao, 2000; Fava,2007).

The fight for basic needs does not allow any subsequent emancipation;consequently, this does not enable the creation of a public space where individuals(residents as well as associations’ representatives) can freely play their politicalrole. The residents in particular, as well as being subjugated by the Mafia, aresubject to ‘subordinate forms of dependence’ on the political actors or on theassociations in their role of mediators. Also the associations, in turn, are subject tothis form of dependence, thus they look for other mediators: the university, in thiscase. That is what happened in the case we described above: in the last phases ofthe process we observed a sort of ‘delegation’ from the associations to theuniversity team. The university, with its proactive role, was considered by theassociations a ‘guarantee’ of the presence of inclusionary practices in the process.The associations appear in the process as shadowy players as they decided todelegate most of the actions and choices to the university team, exploiting theuniversity’s social and cultural accountability. The associations’ strategy aimed forlegitimacy and empowerment in the face of an exclusionary political context. Inthe end, it failed as it was reproducing the same old faults of delegating andlooking for mediators.The associations and the numerous local public operators reflect the

fragmentary social nature of the neighbourhood. While they intended to followa common plan, they inevitably addressed each other, and the problem, fromcompletely different starting points concerning values and ideas of society andcitizenship. This is due to the heterogeneity of those involved in the RI, aspreviously described. Their working methods were often conflicting too, as oftenhappens in social learning practices (Forester, 1989, 2006). As such, their

368



initiatives became discredited, consisting of the manipulation of information andoccasional factions amongst members. In the absence of mature and directparticipation by residents in the debates, such tendencies reveal that the network’sorganizational ability was still immature and easy to exploit, both from within andby the power of the elites.In this case, we—as academics working on this process—are playing the double

role of observers as well as deeply involved actors. The study we described abovewas presented and discussed with some of the associations’ representatives, inorder to test it and to achieve an acceptable methodological standard. Despite that,we are very aware that this is ‘our’ story-telling, based on our ideology, culturalbackground and emotions. As developed in Lo Piccolo (2008), Attili (2009) andPorter (2009), some ethical and methodological issues still remain highlycontroversial and we have to accept this. Indeed, even our initial decision tobecome involved in the process was controversial and problematic. From the verybeginning, our team from the School of Architecture and some associations werewell aware of how fragile the project was because of the policy followed by themunicipal administration. So, why did we agree to take part in it? Thomas (2005,p. 239) reminds us that there are ‘good reasons for wanting to ‘‘stay close’’ topractice, but staying close carries with it a danger of ‘‘going native’’’ and someactors were precisely in the position of running that risk, being aware that politicsmight exploit the entire project and thus put it into jeopardy. In other words, theywere perfectly conscious that options for constructive engagement were anywaylimited. Despite all this, what pushed some actors (academics and some from theassociations) to carry out the project was the will to ‘give a say’ and ‘raise theconsciousness’ of all the people involved, helped and supported by other actors(school teachers, welfare workers and other associations). The motivation relied onthe assumption that any sort of collaborative planning agenda (notwithstanding itspotential misuses and distortions) will produce significant additional ‘socialcapital’ benefits such as improved knowledge (Gunton et al., 2003) that can beconsidered a step towards the construction of Arendt’s space of democracy.

Conclusions

Despite all the efforts previously described, it seems that the entire initiative hasfailed in the short term and that the participative process has not brought about any(tangible) results. Is this true? If yes, why did it happen? This leads us back to ourprevious questions: how (and why) to apply a communicative approach when:

. consensus-building is not a priority;

. conflict is latent and incapable of developing ‘creative tensions’; and

. the notion of public interest is hardly ever considered on the political (andplanning) agenda.

In general terms, it is widely argued by some (see Alexander, 1992, 2002;Campbell & Marshall, 2000, 2002) that planning can broadly reflect the publicinterest. Against this, others argue that planning objectives and actions can becompletely distorted by latent interests. It has also been demonstrated that—in

369



these cases—planners are often interested in stifling participation (Burby, 2003),as was the case of our story. In fact, in the Zen case study, political legitimacy hadalways been gained through the patronizing of most of the local society. As wesaw, high levels of unemployment and low standards of education preclude criticaldebate and people became subjected to the persuasive influence of the media andthe discourses of powerful groups. In this situation, consensus-building is not onthe institutional planning agenda. On the other hand, even when some conflictsarise (as is happening in recent times), they appear as occasional forms of protest,which are largely ignored by institutions, and which consequently fade in a shortamount of time due to their unstructured nature and the weak status andorganizational capability of their participants. Therefore, not only is the search forconsensus-building lacking, but also the conditions for private interests to turn intopublic affairs, represented and considered in a public arena.Furthermore, on the basis of the above and according to a wider literature

discussed in Lo Piccolo (2008), participatory practices involve and require the‘conflictual dimension’ to gain a stronger sense and value. Some authors seeconflict as a disruptive force that causes imbalances in a system of interrelatedparties; others view conflict as a potentially positive force that can promotechange, integration and adaptability (Turner, 1991). Some others (Friedmann,1992, 1999; Holston, 1998; Harvey, 1999) suggest that participatory innovation(and, especially, external assistance) arise in a situation of social conflict. But this‘conflictual dimension’ of inclusion/exclusion is in some cases ‘implicit’ or latent,hidden or concealed. Subsequently, depending on the levels of communitypolitical awareness and empowerment as well as on the manipulating strength ofdominant interests, planning may take deliberative/interactive forms, which clearlyexpress its political role as a social learning practice. Alternatively it may assumetraditional, deterministic models or at best tokenistic and paternalist participatoryforms that often exclude minority groups. Pruitt and Rubin (1986) classify fivestrategies for dealing with conflict: contention, yielding, problem-solving,withdrawal and inaction. If we apply these strategies to our case, we can saythat the last two were adopted with the deliberate intention of exploiting the statusquo in order to avoid conflict and to maintain the supremacy of the elites. In thiscontext, the increasing distance between inhabitants and political representativesand the exclusionary practices are obvious issues, but the case study alsounderlines the need for the restoration of public spaces of debating.The initiative described in the case study was an attempt to achieve this goal, at

least as a precondition for more mature initiatives. University researchers andsocial operators took on the role of rebuilding such a public space as a substantialprecondition to open new communicative actions. In the process, the intellectualfreedom of university staff was considered by social operators as a way toguarantee and ‘measure’ the level of democracy in that space where action wastaking place. According to Sack (1997), places have moral power, and ‘the moralforce of a place involves its capacity to tie together the virtues of truth, justice andthe natural’ (Smith, 2007, p. 7). As reported in Smith:

Sack claims that, just as acts of altruism require the right kinds of placesin which they can be exercised, altruism may itself be encouraged by

370



places that expand our view of reality and enhance awareness of our webof interconnectedness and its moral significance. (2007, p. 13)

Instead of space(s) of altruism, we refer to space(s) of democracy, as analysed inArendt (1958).We agree with Innes and Booher (1999, p. 418) when they remind us that

‘communicative rationality represents an ideal, rather like that of scientificrationality, which is never fully achieved in practice, though it is a goal or atemplate against which to judge research or communicative practice’, and that‘what is mostly missing from the evaluation [of consensus-building outcomes] isan assessment of the long-term effects, whose importance is just beginning to beevident’ (Innes & Booher, 1999, p. 420). These arguments can explain thepotential values of the participative projects described here. In a long-termperspective, these potential values are grounded on a social learning capability,which is fundamental for the construction of the public space of democracy. Wehave in fact to consider that—as illustrated in Beard (2003)—social learning inrestrictive (or at least regressive) political environments occurs incrementally andneeds apparently ‘inefficient’ initial attempts, loose efforts and compromises. Thisis a matter of fact, due to the political and social context, but it can turn into astrategy.7 In fact, those initial attempts can help develop skills and nurture civicconscience, which can in turn be used to organize more effective actions in thefuture.All these actions help construct (and at the same time take place in) Arendt’s

space of democracy. In our view, Arendt’s notion of the space of democracy andthe concept of the public interest in (inclusionary) planning are strictly intertwined.While many have questioned the existence of a substantive public interest,8

Campbell and Marshall (2000, 2002) and Alexander (1992) consider the conceptof public interest as a foundational principle for planning. Furthermore, Howe(1992, 1994) recognizes its value and its role as an ethical norm for planningpractice. Alexander (2002), examining whether the concept of the public interestdoes exist at all as a usable and valuable concept, argues, firstly, that publicinterest can be compatible even with a pluralistic view of politics and society if werefer to a dialogical definition of public interest that is identified ex post factothrough the political process (Alexander, 2002, p. 235). Secondly, he proposes tomove forward Rawls’ or Habermas’ universally accepted norms that are associatedwith the principle of public interest, due to their low level of operationalizationand applicability (Alexander, 2002, p. 238); and finally, while recognizingproblems of applicability in complex cases, he calls for the development of ‘athreshold criterion that represents a generalisable public interest with which no onecan disagree’ (Alexander, 2002, p. 238). This threshold criterion is operationalizedthrough the making of plans to enhance, or at least not to reduce, the welfare of theresidents of the area that is subject to planning interventions.In our experience, this threshold can be used not only to enable substantive plan

evaluation, but primarily to create the ‘premises’ for the construction of a publicspace of democracy that can allow and nurture a real communicative turn inpractice. The Habermasian (Habermas, 1981, 1989) substantive norm, which isassociated with the idea of public interest, fails because of its ‘level of abstraction’

371



(Alexander, 2002, p. 238), the gap between its theory and practice (Gunder, 2003),and because it represents a restrictive model that does not apply to mostcollaborative decision-making processes (Hillier, 2003). In some cases, such as theone we described, it also fails due to the absence of a basic level of access tocitizenship rights and material needs (housing, water supply, work, education) thatare the indispensable ingredients (or, as we say, pre-conditions) for Arendt’s spaceof democracy, which is the (physical and metaphorical) arena where participativepractices can really take place and flourish. As reported in Flynn (2004, pp. 434 –435), Habermas borrowed the concept of communicative power from HannahArendt, while simultaneously reformulating it. Arendt emphasizes that power isalways something exercised in common, not by an individual:

Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act inconcert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to agroup and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together.(1970, p. 44)

In a similar formulation, she claims that ‘power springs up between men [sic]when they act together and vanishes the moment they disperse’ (Arendt, 1958, p.200). Consequently, the pre-condition is a common space where ‘to act in concert’is unavoidable, and therefore we would argue that the communicative approachcannot just rely on the attitudes or orientation of individuals towards dialogue andcommunication, but requires collective action in public spaces.In conclusion, our statements and reflections are not a criticism of

communicative planning, but rather a reflection on the necessity of somepreconditions for its emergence. The existence of public space intended asdemocratic space (as described by Arendt) is one such precondition for therealization of effective forms of communicative planning. If this public space(intended as democratic space) does not exist, the forms of communicativeplanning fail in their immediate concrete results. However, they can contribute tothe building of a public space intended as democratic space in which the notion ofthe public interest can flourish. In other words, participation becomes aprecondition for the building of the public space of democracy, which in turncan result in longer-term outcomes. In this case (and in these contexts) theevaluation of the ‘efficacy’ of the results does not concern the concrete actions (thephysical construction of the space), but rather the contribution to the building of a‘metaphorical space’—the space of democracy.

Notes1. The word ZEN is an acronym for Zona Espansione Nord (North Development Area), which is the ‘name’ of

the neighbourhood.2. We refer to the activity of Danilo Dolci (1959, 1964) in the 1950s and to the so-called Palermo Spring, in the

early 1990s, during Mayor Orlando’s first term in office.3. In the national planning law DM 1444/1968, a compulsory guideline for providing a city wide standard of 18

square metres per inhabitant is detailed in the following way: 2.5 square metres for parking; 9 square metresfor gardens, sports and leisure facilities; 1.5 square metres for schools; 2 square metres for social, culturals,religious and administrative facilities.

372



4. For example, the association named ‘Zen Insieme’ (which is ‘Zen Together’) promotes musical activities, artperformances and other events in the neighbourhood, involving young people as well as their families (whichotherwise are usually reluctant to get involved), in order to develop social actions for all the residents throughthe active role of the younger generation. Another example is the activity of the associations’ kindergartens,run by local women.

5. Ecosfera is a private company of planning professionals and consultants.6. As reported in Fava (2007, p. 265), Nunzia—one of the residents accepted to be interviewed—believes that

‘coming from’ the ZEN not only means to cross the border of illegality and to be seen as a ‘bad citizen’, butalso to cross the threshold of the externally visible economic precariousness, declaring one’s own position onthe lowest step of the social ladder.

7. After the description of a sequence of case studies in Indonesia, Beard (2003, p. 30) demonstrates how ‘afterexperiencing success (albeit modest), the tangible improvement of their organizational skills, and increasedconfidence, residents begin to get a sense of their own agency and become politically conscious’.

8. ‘Three kinds of arguments have been made against the existence of a substantive public interest: it does notexist as a fact, it cannot exist as a holistic interpersonal value, and it should not exist as a privileged substantivevalue’ (Alexander, 2002, p. 234; see also the literature review in this article).

References

Alexander, E. R. (1992) Approaches to Planning: Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts and Issues,2nd ed. (Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach).

Alexander, E. R. (2002) The public interest in planning: From legitimation to substantive plan evaluation,Planning Theory, 1(3), pp. 226–249.

Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).Arendt, H. (1970) On Violence (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co.).Arendt, H. (2005) The Promise of Politics (New York: Schocken Books).Armao, F. (2000) Il Sistema Mafia. Dall’economia-mondo al dominio locale (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri).Attili, G. (2009) Ethical awareness in advocacy planning research, in: F. Lo Piccolo & H. Thomas (Eds) Ethics

and Planning Research, pp. 207–218 (Farnham: Ashgate).Beard, V. A. (2003) Learning radical planning: The power of collective action, Planning Theory, 2(1), pp. 13–35.Bonafede, G. (2008) Reportage di bisogni inappagati: Un’esperienza didattica del laboratorio di urbanistica allo

ZEN, in: A. Badami, M. Picone & F. Schilleci (Eds) Citta nell’Emergenza. Progettare e Costruire traGibellina e lo ZEN, pp. 337–346 (Palermo: Palumbo).

Bonafede, G. & Lo Piccolo, F. (2007) Cronache ZEN: La questione abitativa tra assenza di politiche pubbliche,pratiche dal basso ed arte della negoziazione, Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali, XXXVIII(90), pp. 47–66.

Brand, R. & Gaffikin, F. (2007) Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world, Planning Theory, 6(3), pp.282–313.

Burby, R. J. (2003) Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action, Journal of theAmerican Planning Association, 69(1), pp. 33–49.

Campbell, H. & Marshall, R. (2000) Moral obligations, planning, and the public interest: A commentary oncurrent British practice, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27(2), pp. 297–312.

Campbell, H. & Marshall, R. (2002) Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interestjustification for planning, Planning Theory, 1(2), pp. 163–187.

Cannarozzo, T. (2000) Palermo: Mezzo secolo di trasformazioni, Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali,XXXI(67), pp. 101–139.

Davidoff, P. (1965) Advocacy and pluralism in planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), pp.331–338.

Dolci, D. (1959) Report from Palermo (New York: Orion Press).Dolci, D. (1964)Waste: An Eye-witness Report on Some Aspects of Waste in Western Sicily (New York: Monthly

Review Press).Fava, F. (2007) Banlieue de Palerme. Une version sicilienne de l’exclusion urbaine (Paris: L’Harmattan).Fincher, R. & Jacobs, J. M. (Eds) (1998) Cities of Difference (New York: The Guilford Press).Fischer, F. & Forester, J. (Eds) (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (London: UCL

Press).Flynn, J. (2004) Communicative power in Habermas’s theory of democracy, European Journal of Political

Theory, 3(4), pp. 433–454.

373



Flyvbjerg, B. (1998) Rationality and Power. Democracy in Practice (Chicago, IL: The University of ChicagoPress).

Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes (Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press).Forester, J. (2005) Mediation in Practice: Profiles of Facilitators, Mediators, Coalition- and Consensus-builders

(Ithaca, NY: Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University).Forester, J. (2006) Making participation work when interests conflict: Moving from facilitating dialogue and

moderating debate to mediating negotiations, Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), pp. 447–456.

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Herder and Herder).Friedmann, J. (1992) Empowerment. The Politics of Alternative Development (Cambridge, MA: Blacwell).Friedmann, J. (1999) Claiming rights: Citizenship and the spaces of democracy, Plurimondi, 1(2), pp. 287–303.Gunder, M. (2003) Passionate planning for the others’ desire: An agonistic response to the dark side of planning,

Progress in Planning, 60(3), pp. 235–319.Gunton, T. I., Day, J. C. & Williams, P. W. (2003) Evaluating collaborative planning, Environments, 31(3), pp.

1–11.Habermas, J. (1981) The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Boston:

Beacon Press).Habermas, J. (1989) The Theory of Communicative Action. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist

Reason (Boston: Beacon Press).Harvey, D. (1999) Frontiers of insurgent planning, Plurimondi, 1(2), pp. 269–286.Healey, P. (1993) Planning through debate: The Communicative turn in planning theory, in: F. Fischer & J.

Forester (Eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, pp. 233–253 (London: UCLPress).

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (London: Macmillan).Healey, P. (1998) Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society, Town Planning Review, 69(1), pp. 1–22.Healey, P. (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective, Planning Theory, 2(2), pp. 101–123.Hillier, J. (2003) Agon’izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’, Planning Theory, 2(1),

pp. 37–59.Holston, J. (1998) Spaces of insurgent citizenship, in: L. Sandercock (Ed.) Making the Invisible Visible: A

Multicultural Planning History, pp. 37–56 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).Howe, E. (1992) Professional roles and the public interest in planning, Journal of Planning Literature, 6(3), pp.

230–248.Howe, E. (1994) Acting on Ethics in City Planning (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Centre for Urban Policy

Research).Innes, J. E. (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice, Journal

of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), pp. 183–190.Innes, J. E. (1996) Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal,

Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), pp. 460–472.Innes, J. E. (2004) Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics, Planning Theory, 3(1), pp. 5–20.Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for

evaluating collaborative planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), pp. 412–423.Lo Piccolo, F. (2008) Planning research ‘with’ minorities in Palermo: Negotiating ethics and commitments in a

participatory process, Planning Practice and Research, 23(2), pp. 187–209.Lo Piccolo, F. & Schilleci, F. (2005) Local development partnership programmes in Sicily: Planning cities

without plans, Planning Practice and Research, 20(1), pp. 79–87.Lo Piccolo, F., et al. (2008) Per una cittadinanza attiva: Esercizi di interazione nella analisi e definizione di

politiche urbane innovative per il quartiere ZEN di Palermo, in: A. Badami, M. Picone & F. Schilleci (Eds)Citta nell’Emergenza. Progettare e Costruire tra Gibellina e lo ZEN, pp. 321–336 (Palermo: Palumbo).

Mattina, G. (2007) Il Quartiere San Filippo Neri ‘ZEN’ di Palermo (Rome: Caritas Italiana—Edizioni IDOS).McGuirk, P. M. (2001) Situating communicative planning theory: Context, power, and knowledge, Environment

and Planning A, 33(2), pp. 195–217.Milroy, B. M. (1992) Some thoughts about difference and pluralism, Planning Theory Newsletter, 7/8(summer/

winter), pp. 33–38.Pløger, J. (2004) Strife: Urban planning and agonism, Planning Theory, 3(1), pp. 71–92.

374



Porter, L. (2009) On having imperial eyes, in: F. Lo Piccolo & H. Thomas (Eds) Ethics and Planning Research,pp. 219–231 (Farnham: Ashgate).

Pruitt, D. G. & Rubin, J. Z. (1986) Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Sack, R. D. (1997) Homo Geographicus: A Framework for Action, Awareness, and Moral Concern (Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).

Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons).Sandercock, L. (2003) Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities of the 21st Century (London: Continuum).Sciascia, A. (2003) Tra le Modernita dell’Architettura. La Questione del Quartiere ZEN 2 di Palermo (Palermo:

L’Epos).Sibley, D. (1995) Geographies of Exclusion. Society and Difference in the West (London: Routledge).Smith, D. M. (2007) Moral aspects of place, Planning Theory, 6(1), pp. 7–15.Tewdwr-Jones, M. & Thomas, H. (1998) Collaborative action in local plan-making: Planners’ perceptions of

‘planning through debate’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(1), pp. 127–144.Thomas, H. (2005) Pressures, purpose and collegiality in UK planning education, Planning Theory and Practice,

6(2), pp. 238–247.Turner, J. H. (1991) The Structure of Sociological Theory, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth).Watson, V. (2006) Deep difference: Diversity, planning and ethics, Planning Theory, 5(1), pp. 31–50.

375



Participative Planning Processes in the Absence of the (Public) Space of Democracy [Planning...

Documents

Transcript of Participative Planning Processes in the Absence of the (Public) Space of Democracy [Planning...