Consensus Building Versus Irreconcilable Conflicts: Reframing Participatory Spatial Planning
This chapter presents the state of the art of this research and frames themain research question of the work. Contemporary literature shows a growing interest in reframing boundaries of public and civic participation in planning and an urgent need to reframe the theory of planning itself, looking for more effective and legitimate conceptions and approaches to participation. As a background of the research, this chapter gives an overview of the cultural origins of participatory approaches to urban and territorial planning, by exploring the epistemological and paradigmatic evolution of planning theory, the different political attitudes towards participation and the most consolidated participatory cultures and practice. The last paragraph deals with contemporary criticisms, expressed in trade literature, of contemporary practices of participatory planning, largely drawn by the communicative tradition. 1.1 Toward a Participative Conception of Urban Planning Participatory practices were introduced in urban and territorial planning as practical attempts to find effective and legitimate approaches to governing urban and territorial complexity. Traditionally, spatial planning practice has consolidated its logic and institutional structures on a stable system of actors and a relatively stable operative realm the industrial city of the nineteenth century In the late 60s, this structure started crumbling: new urbanization processes, urban sprawl characterizing the post industrial city, fracture within the traditional relationship between public and private actors (Balducci 1996) and a more generalized de legitimation process of the entire democratic system, brought to an intense debate within the disciplinary field itself. Traditional concepts of territories and consequently of urban planning practice started being questioned and a new "sociocratic" paradigm (Besio 2000) emerged in Particularly, the revolutionary movement of '68 contributed to spread an anti authoritarian and anarchical culture, which influenced the public domain as a whole. Faced with a depersonalized society, the movement claimed participation of self organized social groups in the decision making process and reassessment of the uniqueness of individuals over a standardized social mass. (c) The Author(s) 2016 E. Saporito, Consensus Building Versus Irreconcilable Conflicts, PoliMI SpringerBriefs, DOI 10.1007/978 3 319 30829 6_1 1 planning. During the theoretical debate of the next decades, it became clearer that the urban space stayed in an interdependent relationship with urban communities, as being progressively defined and modified by a plurality of uses, meanings and intentions of urban actors (Crosta 2000, 2010; Giangrande 2006) As a consequence of this historical and ecological dimensions of the city (Mumford 1956; Illich 1978; Magnaghi 1998) urban planning practice needed to consider and hence deal with its political nature and its social impact, not only with the mere spatial and physical nature of the city. Progressively, planners and intellectuals assimilated the discipline with decision making practice in public domain, as the field of "managing public affairs" (Tutino 1985; Friedmann 1987; Forester 1989; Healey 1997) related to spatial issues, when dealing with market interests and public policy aims. According to this interpretation, the urban plan in it self started being considered as a sort of policy, a public political measure consisting in courses of actions provided, having effects on the distribution of advantages and disadvantages (Veca 1985) among social actors. Being a public policy making practice that basically distributes access to resources, goods, values and environmental and spatial opportunities (Moroni 1994) urban planning has necessarily addressed issues of social justice (Rawls 1971 in Stein and Harper 2005; Veca 1985; Moroni 1997) and legitimacy, as well as issues of rationality and effectiveness, when reconsidering the plan as a flexible and process related instrument for implementing public political decisions. Therefore, participation in planning theory and practice became a way through which to face issues of uncertainty and ambiguity in planning, concerning with public accountability, democratic representativeness, role of special interests, definition of public good and knowledge gain. However, talking about participation is always a slippery topic. In fact, the way in which participation is conceived in urban planning practice has to do with the contingent political culture, the political view of the society, hence, of the public action, and with the relevant decision making model, that means, with the rationality of the policy. 1.1.1 Rationalities in Planning: A Paradigmatic Revolution The contemporary belief that social actors are subjects of any urban transformation process; the assumption that other actors, besides the municipality and the planner, can influence the public decision making, being actual stakeholders of the urban project as developers, investors, groups of interest, ecc. or that by including local communities urban inhabitants, marginalized social groups, ecc. the planning process can gain local knowledge and obtain redistributive effects, derived from a paradigmatic evolution in planning theory. A way to explain this cultural evolution in planning is by looking at the way in which public action was reframed progressively, in search for more effective and About Rawlsian Theory of Social Justice an in depth analysis is provided in Chap. 2. 2 1 New Challenges for Participatory Approaches in Spatial Planning