The Case of Dutch Urban Planning Özdemir, E.; Tasan-Kok, T

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Planners’ role in accommodating citizen disagreement The case of Dutch urban planning Özdemir, E.; Tasan-Kok, T. DOI 10.1177/0042098017726738 Publication date 2019 Document Version Final published version Published in Urban Studies License CC BY-NC Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA): Özdemir, E., & Tasan-Kok, T. (2019). Planners’ role in accommodating citizen disagreement: The case of Dutch urban planning. Urban Studies, 56(4), 741-759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017726738

General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)

Download date:28 Sep 2021 Article

Urban Studies 2019, Vol. 56(4) 741–759 Planners’ role in accommodating Ó Urban Studies Journal Limited 2017 Article reuse guidelines: citizen disagreement: The case of sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0042098017726738 Dutch urban planning journals.sagepub.com/home/usj

Esin O¨ zdemir Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

Tuna Tasan-Kok Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands; and Department of Human Geography, Planning and International Development, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands

Abstract Citizen disagreement on urban policies and planning decisions is both ubiquitous and fundamental to democracy. Post-political debates debunk the ‘consensus approach’, which is grounded in Habermasian communication theory, for circumventing disagreement. This article presents a counter argument. Our analysis of the highly institutionalised and consensus-oriented Dutch planning framework shows that this system does not necessarily prevent effective voicing of disagreement. The empirical material demonstrates that consensus is not a pre-defined and static outcome but a dynamic and sensitive process in which urban planning is an instrument. We con- clude that planners could facilitate consensus through accommodative roles that address disagreement by taking an adaptive, proactive and more human stance.

Keywords citizen disagreement, consensus, Dutch urban planning, post-politics, urban planners ᪈㾱 ൘≁ѫ⽮Պѝˈޜ≁ሩ෾ᐲ᭯ㆆ઼㿴ࡂߣㆆⲴᔲ㿱Პ䙽ᆈ൘ˈҏᱟ≁ѫⲴṩᵜ⢩ᖱǄสҾ ૸䍍傜ᯟ⋏䙊⨶䇪ⲴĀޡ䇶ѻ䚃ā᜿൘㿴䚯ᔲ㿱˗ਾ᭯⋫ᆖ䈤᨝クҶަ䶒㓡Ǆᵜ᮷ᨀࠪҶ ањ৽䶒㿲⛩ǄᡁԜ࠶᷀Ҷ儈ᓖࡦᓖॆᒦԕޡ䇶ѪሬੁⲴ㦧ޠ㿴ࡂփ㌫ˈ㺘᰾Ҷ䘉аփ㌫ ᒦнᗵ❦䱫→ᔲ㿱Ⲵᴹ᭸ਁ༠Ǆ㓿傼⹄ウ䇱᰾ˈޡ䇶ᒦнᱟа⿽亴ᇊⲴǃ䶉ᘱⲴ㔃ᶴˈ㘼 ᱟа⿽ࣘᘱⲴ᭿ᝏ䗷〻ˈ෾ᐲ㿴ࡂᱟ䗮ᡀޡ䇶Ⲵањ᡻⇥ǄᡁԜᗇࠪ㔃䇪˖㿴ࡂ㘵ਟ䙊䗷䇶Ǆޡ䘋׳䟷ਆ䈳䘲ǃѫࣘǃᴤӪᙗⲴုᘱᶕ༴⨶ᔲ㿱ˈӾ㘼ਁᥕॿ䈳Ⲵ֌⭘ˈԕ↔ᶕ

ޣ䭞䇽 ޜ≁ᔲ㿱ǃޡ䇶ǃ㦧ޠ෾ᐲ㿴ࡂǃਾ᭯⋫ǃ෾ᐲ㿴ࡂ㘵

Corresponding author: Esin O¨ zdemir, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Received January 2016; accepted July 2017 Architecture and the Built Environment, OTB – Research for the Built Environment, Julianalaan 134, Delft 2628 BL, Netherlands. Email: [email protected] 742 Urban Studies 56(4)

Introduction 2009; Mayer, 2009; Nicholls and Vermeulen, 2012; Purcell, 2002, 2013); or through gov- Intellectuals, activists and progressive citi- ernance and participatory mechanisms (e.g. zens are increasingly concerned about how Beaumont and Nicholls, 2008; Pierre, 2005; ‘democracy’ is practised at different scales Uitermark and Duyvendak, 2008). Other and in different contexts. Their discontent is studies assess the roles of policy-makers, expressed as a crisis of representative democ- implementers and planners, particularly racy in its participatory/deliberative forms, managerial and technical tasks in adminis- the democratic deficit, the erosion of democ- tration, coordination, facilitation, negotia- racy, or something similar. It comes to a tion and conflict resolution (Albrechts, 1991; head in the city, a nexus of exclusionary Breheny and Low, 1995; Clifford and urban policies and practices leading to a Tewdwr-Jones, 2013; Forester, 1989, 2009, process that Harvey calls accumulation by 2013; Fox-Rogers and Murphy, 2015; Udy, dispossession, which mainly affects lower- 1994). Some authors call for political income groups. engagement to put structural issues on the This article enquires whether contempo- agenda (Albrechts, 1991, 2010) and to raise rary urban planning processes are deepening political awareness among planners the democratic deficit. The literature concep- (Grange, 2012). tualises the crisis of representative democracy While the scope of the discussion is as ‘post-politics’ and the various forms of widening, the post-political literature, not- depoliticisation and exclusion it entails as withstanding its insightfulness and critical ‘post-political’ (Mouffe, 1999, 2005; energy, remains theoretical and philosophi- ˇ Rancie` re, 2004a, 2004b, 2010; Zizˇek, 1999). cal. It has been insufficiently infused with The consensus approach has been disparaged empirical material detailing cases in which as a tool for taming people, accused of long and cumbersome planning processes strengthening established agendas and giving are deadlocked because of a lack of consen- them a pseudo-democratic look, whereby dis- sus. That literature often overlooks the agreements are neither heard nor accommo- potential of consensus-seeking and the dated but rather circumvented or ignored. agency of planners. Going against the grain, Consensus-building approaches in urban pol- an emergent literature calls for a rehabilita- icy and planning are criticised for excluding tion of the ‘political’ in urban policy and and marginalising contestation and conflict, planning and more room for agency but also for lending itself to neoliberal instru- (Gualini, 2015). This could invoke ‘politics mentalisation, which leads to exclusionary by other means’ such as direct action or civil practices (Bengs, 2005; Fainstein, 2000; disobedience and facilitating public dispute Flyvbjerg, 1998; Gunton et al., 2006; Harris, (Metzger, 2011). Although some studies 2002; Purcell, 2009; Swyngedouw, 2005). focus on planners’ roles, few have connected There is a large body of literature on how consensus-building to the ‘human’ aspects of citizens express disagreement: through urban their role performance. movements (e.g. Arampatzi and Nicholls, The article proposes a constructive 2012; Castells, 1977, 1983, 1996; Fainstein approach to consensus-building, based on and Fainstein, 1985; Mayer, 2000; Miller the precept of planning as an instrument for and Nicholls, 2013; O¨zdemir and Eraydin, actual democracy. The planner is perceived 2017; Pickvance, 1976, 2003; Pruijt, 2003; as a human being, is situated in a consensus- Uitermark, 2004); claiming their right to the building context and understood in terms of city (e.g. Harvey, 2003, 2008; Marcuse, how s/he responds to disagreement. The O¨ zdemir and Tasan-Kok 743 research questions expand upon that propo- exclusionary (Hillier, 2003; Hoekveld and sition: How can contemporary urban plan- Needham, 2013). In Swyngedouw’s (2014: ning practice accommodate citizen 181) words, intervention ‘enables the forma- disagreement? What are the roles and position of certain socio-ecological assemblages tions of urban planners vis-a` -vis disagree- and closes down others’. The literature fore- ment? From a post-political point of view, grounds instances when planners have been planners would be expected to adopt a disaccommodative (see Attuyer, 2015; technocratic-managerial stance in the pur- Martı´nez, 2011; Rannila and Loivaranta, suit of consensus, whereby the ‘powerful’ 2015). Our aim is to show that they can be would prevail in any dispute. But this is not accommodative in a consensus-based plan- necessarily so; ‘consensus-building’ is shown ning system. to be a dynamic, context-dependent process. Disagreement in the Netherlands is less The study presents empirical material from about material needs than lived experiences the Dutch planning experience to demon- (MacLeod and McFarlane, 2014). Among the strate that a consensus-building approach prevailing issues are sustainable production, can accommodate disagreements. The deci- clean air, growing your own food, local pro- sive factor is agency: urban planners would duction and communities. Since they reflect have to step outside the boundaries of their discontent rather than deprivation, disagree- technocratic role and create alternative ment rarely leads to serious conflict. Some channels for public involvement. Consensus might consider the experiences documented is then an ongoing pursuit: it is sought during our fieldwork trivial compared with through non-formal and non-regulated, planning disputes in Israel, Turkey, Brazil or often spontaneous and egalitarian interac- elsewhere, where disagreements can lead to tion among experts and citizens. serious social turmoil. However, in the Dutch Our qualitative research took place from context they are important. Furthermore, February to September 2015. We conducted once configured at a conceptual level, there is 14 in-depth semi-structured interviews with no reason why we cannot apply these accom- urban planners, most of whom were working modative approaches to more serious con- for the Municipality of Amsterdam (MoA), flicts. According to current research (Tasan- and with academics and professionals. Kok et al., 2016; Tasan-Kok and Oranje, Informal discussions covering observations 2017), this is already happening: novel of the built environment and document anal- mechanisms, activism and creativity are being ysis accompanied the interviews. The Dutch applied by planners around the world. planning system makes a good case study in Even within a very technocratic frame- that consensus-building and mutual adjust- work, planners can turn disagreements to ment are built into the decision-making pro- the advantage of the community. A cesses (Van der Valk, 2002). Moreover, consensus-oriented planning system provides Dutch planning has learned from experience a convenient setting to explore that premise. since the 1960s by transforming itself in line The next section unravels the concept of with urban movements (Pruijt, 2004; consensus. The third section briefly describes Uitermark, 2009). On the other hand, local the Dutch planning system as an example of initiatives of planners pose no threat to consensus-oriented urban planning. The entrenched power relations and market- fourth section presents the findings of the driven principles. Not everyone will feel sat- case study, introducing alternative channels isfied with the outcome, since decision- of public involvement. The fifth and sixth making and intervention are inevitably sections describe the accommodative roles of 744 Urban Studies 56(4) planners and their human dimension in light The post-political approach frames consen- of some indicative cases, and the final sec- sus as an expert–citizen interaction but fails to tion offers some concluding remarks and explain how to resolve the disagreements that reflections. policy-makers face daily. This paper examines the role of consensus from the standpoint of theplanner,theprofessional who is trying to A reconsideration of consensus safeguard the public interest within complex and conflicting situations in the best way he/ The literature on post-politics (Mouffe, she can. Although communicative planning 1999, 2005; Rancie` re, 2004a, 2004b, 2010; ˇ has some limitations, such as ignoring trans- Swyngedouw, 2005, 2011; Zizˇek, 1999) pro- formative processes to foster social change blematises contemporary processes of nego- (Huxley, 2000), it is the most concrete tiating, stakeholder democracy, consensus- approach to deal with disagreements. building and good governance (Raco, 2016). Communicative planning has been criti- It criticises consensus-building for circum- cised for portraying power as oppressive and venting citizen disagreements by repressing for promoting planning as a search for them through the enforcement of established power-free deliberations (Van Assche et al., agendas and hence, for tolerating systemic 2014). It tends to reinforce the status quo problems. Extending to the issues of envi- (Bengs, 2005; Purcell, 2009) and nurture the ronment, technology and migration (see Van post-political condition (Roy, 2015) by sup- Puymbroeck and Oosterlynck, 2014; Wilson pressing the radical and transformative edge and Swyngedouw, 2014), it is not only criti- (Harris, 2002), favouring certain groups above cal of representative democracy, but also of others (Fainstein, 2000; Flyvbjerg, 1998; deliberative democracy and therefore of Gunton et al., 2007; Swyngedouw, 2005). Habermasian communicative action theory Actions organised within communicative (Habermas, 1984), which underpins commu- planning are limited and exclusive (Blakeley, nicative/collaborative planning (Forester, 2010; Eraydin and Tasan-Kok, 2014). 1989, 1993; Healey, 1996; Innes, 1996; The post-political critique of communica- Sager, 1994, 2005, 2006, 2009). Communi- tive rationality is valuable but not convin- cative rationality is harshly criticised for cing. The very notion of post-politics is neutralising conflict and antagonisms, which dubious; one cannot refer to an original ‘pol- are constitutive of social relations and nour- itics’ or to a past that is simply ‘post’ (Diken, ish innovation, a necessary dimension of 2014). Blu¨hdorn (2014) argued that the form democracy (Mouffe, 1999, 2005). Consensus of ‘political’ emphasised in the post-political is deemed undesirable, undemocratic and literature no longer exists, so the time has authoritarian in character (Mouffe, 2005; come for a profound transformation in the Swyngedouw, 2005). Some even consider it understanding of democracy. The post- impossible (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; political framework is criticised for lumping Mouffe, 2005). They argue that non-coercive all political practices together under the label consensus is impossible, since conflictive of global capitalism (Van Puymbroeck and issues cannot be reduced to a rational inclu- Oosterlynck, 2014: 86). Reifying the post- sionary argumentation. An alternative is political in this way restricts the room to agonistic pluralism, in which conflict is contest such practices (Bond et al., 2015). deemed productive and innovative and pre- The post-political literature is also criticised ferred for its transformative and emancipa- for being pessimistic (Larner, 2014); for tory potential (Mouffe, 2005). ignoring the potential of situated practices O¨ zdemir and Tasan-Kok 745

(Loftus, 2014); and for not providing gui- consensus on the ethico-political values of dance for practical struggle (Merrifield, liberty and equality for all but disagrees with 2014: 282). The following discussion of con- their interpretation. By analogy, the prob- sensus highlights these weak spots by lem is not ‘consensus’ but the agenda itself. expanding on our propositions as stated in What we find particularly problematic is the the headings. ‘undesirability of consensus’. We disagree with this position; consensus may indeed be very desirable depending on the issue and Consensus may be possible and desirable the conditions since it is a context-dependent because of its context-dependent nature process. Purcell (2009: 146) concurs, stating Post-political thinking posits that consensus is that ‘the degree to which it will produce neither possible nor desirable (Mouffe, 2005). democratic deficits varies from place to It is argued that Habermasian ideals and con- place, depending on a range of contextual sensus cannot be real and instead an agonistic factors’. In contexts where consensus- pluralism should be sought for. We choose to building is embedded in the social and cul- differ. First of all, as highlighted by Hillier tural norms and is thereby entrenched in the (2003) and Bond (2011), Habermas is well institutions, as in the Dutch context, it is aware that consensus is an ideal, and sees it as conducive to democratic decision-making. ‘a critical standard against which actual prac- But it will be counter-productive where con- tice may be evaluated’. It is a guiding stan- sensus is not a value but a target, a proce- dard, which reminds policy makers and dure for settling arguments and reaching a professionals that they need to ask people decision ‘no matter what’. what they want. Healey (2003) also sees con- A lack of consensus makes it impossible sensus as fragile, incomplete and contestable. to proceed from conflicting ideals and views Second, if we look at his ontological assump- to decision and implementation, and the risk tions (see, for example, Brand and Gaffikin, of a vicious circle arises. Examples abound 2007), we see that inter-subjectivity and ‘care at the urban level, where the agendas of dif- for others’ are the core issues, as opposed to ferent actors jeopardise spatial interventions the atomistic individual of the liberal doctrine, in multi-actor governance processes (Tasan- which makes it a framework that can be criti- Kok, 2009). Planners need to apply abstract cised, nevertheless still deserves to be engaged ideals of diverse actors to specific planning with in the neoliberal era. Third, and interest- problems in particular spaces (Campbell ingly enough, agonistic pluralism also puts et al., 2014), going beyond discussions to forward a theoretical ideal, ‘as there is no pro- reach agreements (Bond, 2011; Hillier, 2003). ven design to realize’ it (Gualini, 2015: 21). In that sense, ‘both theoretical frameworks have Consensus is a dynamic and conflict- the potential to perpetuate the status quo rather then transform inequitable power rela- sensitive process tions’ (Bond, 2011). The critique of communicative approaches Furthermore, the post-political stand- usually portrays consensus and conflict as point can be likened to positions on ‘equal- mutually exclusive. Gualini (2015: 14), for ity’. The fact that it is difficult to achieve example, draws attention to authors such as should not prevent us from striving for it, Mouffe and Rancie` re who treat consensus and the same can be said for consensus. from a perspective of radical negativity, Agreeing with this stance, Mouffe (2005: 31, excluding the pragmatic solution of a ‘work- 212) draws attention to a conflictual type of ing consensus’. Some studies explore the 746 Urban Studies 56(4) dialogue between the communicative and ago- agency (Gualini, 2015) and for downplaying nistic approaches (Beaumont and Loopmans, micro-politics (Larner, 2014). The agency of 2008; Bond, 2011; Hillier, 2003). Conflict-sen- planners gains importance in the framework sitivity and consensus-orientation are not of planning as an instrument of consensus, necessarily mutually exclusive in urban plan- which is the only way to move forward in ning; both can be accommodated in a con- the complex web of conflicting interests that structive manner. The planners play a key characterises local planning practice, where role in this process. Furthermore, the critique ‘communication is political’ (Forester, 1980). treats consensus as a pre-defined static out- The driving force behind constructive rela- come. Instead, we agree with Hillier (2003), tionships is the strong belief among planners who sees consensus as a process and a prod- that they need to seek consensus. Although uct. Our counter-argument goes on to pro- their actions are usually grounded in com- pose that ‘consensus-building’ is a dynamic municative rationality, they do not live in a and conflict-sensitive process. vacuum; planners are enmeshed in society This process starts with an intensive drive through their professional, personal and for consensus, formed around alternative intellectual engagement. They are thus aware channels of interaction between citizens and of the complex web of power relations, and planners. It invokes citizen’s willpower and it is the human aspect of their willingness courage to express their opinions and dis- and dedication to explore the disagreements agreements, and it takes steps to accommo- that comes to the fore in those constructive date these. In such efforts, individuals, relationships. By trying to avoid serving only groups, policy-makers and implementers are the dominant interests, consensus-oriented given the opportunity to explore new ideas planners are instrumental in resolving dis- and solutions and consider the consequences agreements between decision-makers and the of the proposed decisions. They are con- public. Of course, not all planners are willing fronted with new dimensions of the issue and able to explore disagreements; the plan- and either change or persist in their position ning profession is not a homogenous entity. in response. Originally, Healey’s (1996) idea But we would refute the idea that all plan- of communicative planning never envisaged ners ‘seem to doubt the value of hearing the a consensus process that is devoid of conflict views of residents outside the official plan- but actually emphasised the right to chal- ning scheme’ and are ‘interested in these lenge the consensus. In that sense, methods only ‘‘in theory’’’ (Rannila and consensus-building can be configured as a Loivaranta, 2015: 803). process where people can voice their dis- The following section expands on these agreements and be convinced or motivated, propositions, giving evidence from our case but not obliged, to take a step back from study of planners in Amsterdam. their own agendas for the common good. In what follows, we aim to show how this An example of consensus- might be possible putting planners into the heart of the analysis. oriented decision-making: Dutch urban planning Planning is an instrument for consensus- Consensus-building in the Netherlands is implemented through the ‘polder model’, building where planners have key roles which is defined as harmonious patterns The post-political position has been criticised of interaction between social partners for not leaving much room for forms of (Glasbergen, 2002; Needham, 2005; Terhorst O¨ zdemir and Tasan-Kok 747 and Van der Ven, 1998; Van der Valk, the neoliberal agenda. The effects have been 2002). Interest groups are drawn into the denounced by Fainstein (2010), who once policy-making process on the basis of a described Amsterdam as a ‘just city’, and covenant between business and government by Uitermark (2009), who sees these new (Tasan-Kok and Korthals Altes, 2012). trends as signs of the ‘death of the just Urban planning is highly institutionalised city’. Despite its social housing tradition, and consensus-driven in the Netherlands, Amsterdam has become quite exclusive where ‘rule and order’ is the underlying prin- when it comes to access to affordable hous- ciple (Faludi and Van der Valk, 1994). Its ing (Van Gent, 2013). roots lie in the Middle Ages, when land was The Dutch planning system has also been already a scarce commodity because of the called technocratic (Faludi and Van der condition of the soil in the western regions Valk, 1994). A balance should be sought and the high population density. With 27% between consensus-building and a critical of the country below sea level, the approach, considering that reaching consen- Netherlands has become a world-famous sus is no guarantee for being right (Faludi brand in spatial planning and water manage- and Van der Valk, 1994). The post-political ment. To this centuries-long struggle one critique implies that the focus on consensus can add the reconstruction after the Second in Dutch planning would mean that dis- World War. These conditions have forced agreements are circumvented through gov- people to work together, negotiate and seek ernance arrangements devised for consensus- consensus. As one of our respondents building. However, there is compelling evi- pointed out, ‘this higher goal of ‘‘working dence that Dutch urban planners, thanks to together’’ has become a part of the ‘‘collec- their efforts to reach consensus, do not cir- tive DNA of the society’’’ (Interview 1). cumvent, ignore or try to eradicate disagree- In the 1960s, modernist planning took a ments but instead accommodate them by top-down approach. Protests targeted proj- carrying out ‘consensus-building’ as a ects that made the city look like a ‘battle- dynamic process with the help of non-formal field’ (Interview 2). Dutch planners were initiatives. receptive to criticism during the 1970s and 1980s (Pruijt, 2004; Uitermark, 2009; Uitermark and Nicholls, 2013). Ideas origi- Planners with different roles vis-a`- nating in the counter culture became main- vis disagreements stream: in Amsterdam, the ‘compact city’ became the dominant planning model, and In this section, we demonstrate the accom- decision-makers took a more cautious modativeness of consensus-oriented Dutch approach (Pruijt, 2004). planners based on findings from the field From the 1990s onwards globalisation research. After briefly discussing alternative has been changing the planning system, par- non-formal channels and initiatives, we will ticularly its modernist-centralist character. analyse the accommodative roles of plan- Large-scale urban developments and public– ners. (See Table 1 for an indicative list of private partnerships thrived while the sectors both types of mechanisms.) We aim to show of social and affordable housing went into that these initiatives are not only more crea- decline. Although less market-driven than tive and adaptive but also more human and planning systems elsewhere, Dutch urban therefore more accommodative to disagree- planning has been seriously influenced by ments of citizens. 748 Urban Studies 56(4)

Table 1. Examples of formal and non-formal mechanisms for public involvement in Dutch planning.

1. Formal mechanisms Local elections Participation through democratic representation Referendums Writing letters to council Participation in council meetings Participation by invitation Public hearings (Inspraakavonden) Going to court 2. Non-formal mechanisms Questionnaires and surveys Top-down mechanisms Investigation through social media Panel debates Spontaneous discussions and debates Workshops Roadshows, visits to neighbourhoods Bottom-up mechanisms Simulation games and visualisation House visits by planners Opening branches of planning bureaus Co-creation or open planning

Formal-participatory mechanisms and a their system as more ‘open’ to the public shift to non-formal alternatives than many other planning systems, they admit that powerful interests have more In the highly institutionalised Dutch plan- resources and capacity to use these mechan- ning system, formal mechanisms exist to isms and at times even to abuse them. They deal with disagreements on decisions and are aware of the power relations at play and proposals and to reach consensus. These know that ‘the powerful will already be mechanisms are generally mandatory and heard’ (Interview 3). Another issue is selec- implemented by invitation. The most direct tive participation (Voogd and Woltjer, methods of influencing policy-making are 1999). Planners noted an unwillingness of attending council meetings and writing let- the public to participate, especially among ters. However, most mechanisms are criti- deprived and less resourceful groups such as cised for being anti-democratic by neglecting migrants: disagreement as an option, and for being biased in favour of the powerful interests Always the same kind people come when underpinning the neoliberal condition. invited. People who have already been Therefore, planners along with other policy involved and have the capacity to do this. And practitioners are urged ‘not only to appreci- people who don’t get involved are those with ate, but also to actively facilitate, those lower education, immigrants. (Interview 1) moments when crucial policy issues are opened up to public dispute’ (Metzger, In reaction to the relative ineffectiveness of 2011). formal institutional mechanisms, Dutch As our field research reveals, the mechan- planners have turned to non-formal means isms are criticised by the planners them- of consensus-building over the past decade. selves, who consider these as insufficiently The new mechanisms are in continuous effective to accommodate disagreements. development, and these range from applying Although Dutch planners tend to assess technology and participatory processes to O¨ zdemir and Tasan-Kok 749 using simulation games (Interview 4). The professional companions get close to the resi- alternative channels for consensus-building dents and try to become involved in their expanded on here include non-formal initia- lived experiences so as to understand the tives, which are much more context-sensitive nature of the disagreements and to seek and accommodative than formal ones. solutions together. And the co-creators guide Urban planners take initiatives as part of the public in co-decision-making. We should their consensus-building efforts, which ulti- add that these roles are not totally new ones; mately makes them more influential when there are studies highlighting non- dealing with disagreements. These initiatives conventional roles of planners (for e.g. ‘criti- are not mandatory; they are products of cal friend’ by Forester, 1989). What distin- proactive planners, and as such they are guishes our analysis is the emphasis we put creative solutions tailored to the public’s on planners’ agency vis-a` -vis disagreements needs. per se, and how they perform consensus- The following section concerns the roles building processes not only as experts, but that Dutch urban planners play through as ‘humans’ trying to understand and non-formal initiatives for consensus-build- respond to people in specific cases. In what ing. It shows how consensus-building as a follows we demonstrate how planners’ ‘dynamic and conflict-sensitive process’ can dynamic and case-sensitive approaches in be made possible by planners through their accommodating citizen disagreements influ- willingness to listen to and take heed of enced the consensus-building processes opposing ideas. through adaptive, proactive, and more human stances Dutch planners have taken. Utilisation of disagreements: Alternative approaches Planner as brainstormer Planners try to find a balance between differ- Perhaps the first step toward accommodat- ent standpoints. Here, we focus on the par- ing disagreement is to brainstorm. Planners ticular actions, behaviours and attitudes that provide the public with tools to express what develop throughout the whole planning pro- they do and do not want. These tools include cess, including one-to-one contacts with the different platforms and material/immaterial public. Planners engage in such initiatives resources. Questionnaires and surveys, either not only as professionals but also as human online or face-to-face, are good examples. beings with their own values and opinions. The sincerity of consensus-building is illu- Based on our research, we are able to strated by the gradual demolition of the highlight a few dominant roles for planners Bijlmermeer, a social housing estate in when dealing with disagreements. We Amsterdam. The residents were asked to can classify these roles as brainstormers, pro- take part in face-to-face surveys before fessional companions, and co-creators.In demolition and the consent of the great complex situations, Dutch practitioners majority was obtained (Wassenberg, 2011). experiment with ways to reach consensus Spontaneous debates and discussions are among different parties, applying unortho- arranged when the topic attracts extensive dox methods instead of classic ‘participatory publicity. These are held often, mostly in the planning’ practices. The brainstormers pave evenings at a specific venue (such as Pakhuis the way for consensus by engaging in discus- de Zwijger,1 a cultural platform). sion and investigating needs and opinions, The case we looked into as regards the which may be unknown or unvoiced. The role of the planner as brainstormer concerns 750 Urban Studies 56(4) the infrastructure to connect the northern supported with technical documentation and and southern parts of Amsterdam under the research. The proposals were then presented IJ waterway. The motivation for the to approximately 200 participants to discuss Municipality of Amsterdam (MoA) to further steps. One of the planners empha- undertake the project may be summarised as sised: ‘In these discussions, I try to be open, follows. The northern bank was mainly an transparent and precise. And I use an under- industrial zone and home to a lower-income standable language, not a technical one’ working-class population in the past. As (Interview 9). The five proposals formed the industry left the city from the 1980s basis for the rest of the project. onwards, and the MoA turned its attention Although the plans have not been fina- to redevelopment projects such as lised, the MoA has agreed in principle to Overhoeks,2 Amsterdam North started to build a bridge for pedestrians and cyclists change. It is becoming attractive to young over the IJ.3 At the time of our research, it people in particular: a new film museum was debated by anti-bridge lobbyists and opened in 2012, a cultural centre opened in people who appreciated the prospect of bet- 2014, new residential neighbourhoods are ter cross-town accessibility. Not everyone under construction and employment oppor- will be satisfied with the final decision, and tunities are increasing. Therefore, a better the brainstorming sessions have not altered north–south connection was considered nec- the MoA’s growth strategies. Given the need essary. The project was called ‘Spring over for better accessibility, this procedure shows the IJ’ at the time we interviewed two plan- that the planners’ brainstorming role, which ners working for it. Both emphasised the draws the residents into the ‘process of importance of being interested in what peo- thinking’, and their openness to communica- ple want and talking to them before making tion widens the channels for new ideas, dis- any proposal. They invited citizens to come agreements, and reservations and prepares up with ideas on how to connect the south them to make changes in the plans. and north banks. The ideas were communi- cated through the municipal website, the media, social media and in speeches by the Planner as professional companion mayor and aldermen. They collected 77 Another role is that of professional compa- ideas during workshops. Half of the partici- nion. It embodies the proactive stance of pants were residents, the other half either planners and their efforts to understand the professionals or companies. The ideas citizens by spending time together rather included constructing a bridge or tunnel, than merely inviting them to events. adding new ferries and a new metro line or An example of such a proactive stance is combinations of these options. As one plan- the roadshow, a method used by planners ner said: working on the ‘Rode Loper’ (Red Carpet) project for redesigning public space. Sometimes people come with an idea written Planners visited areas that will be affected in a text including a number of rules to be fol- lowed, while others come with big plans. So, it by the Red Carpet, which is to be completed is overwhelming, but also very exciting, in 2018. An important site of the project is because what we do is for the people of the Damrak, one of the city’s busiest streets. Amsterdam. (Interview 8) It is traversed each day by tens of thousands of people on their way between Central In the next step, planners worked out these Station and the city centre on foot, by bike, ideas in five detailed proposals, which they tram, underground metro or car. The O¨ zdemir and Tasan-Kok 751 planning process is embroiled in contro- We observed that small planning decisions versy; the project affects not only local resi- are actually more complex than they seem dents, shopkeepers and people working and their effects more wide-ranging. New nearby but almost the entire population of disagreements can arise, but some can turn Amsterdam. Many disagreements have arisen, into agreement or even explicit support. This as expressed by one of its chief planners: example reveals the importance of micro- ‘There are a lot of people looking over your politics and the agency of planners in the shoulder if you are doing things right’ dynamic and conflict-sensitive process of (Interview 5). For this reason, the planners consensus-building by showing how plan- organised roadshows to reach as many people ners, acting as professional companions, can as possible and involve them in the planning accommodate disagreement. process. One of the serious disagreements was When the objections are serious, informal about a traffic route that included a cross- contacts between planners and citizens usu- roads of pedestrians, bikes, trams and cars. ally take place. On a voluntary basis, plan- The original proposal suggested opening up ners visit people’s homes to discuss their more space for pedestrians and bikes while objections. By opening branches of planning limiting car access. The planners held 13 road- bureaus in neighbourhoods where a project shows to listen to people in the districts is to be implemented, planners come into affected. As the same planner explained: close proximity of the public; people can drop in to learn about developments and Instead of workshops, we organized road- express their ideas and needs. As these infor- shows. We went to the people to show what mal contacts are mostly couched in ad-hoc the possibilities were, what the effects would initiatives, a few examples may suffice to be, and to hear whether they had any ideas of illustrate the range of proactive activities. how to make the plan better. The ideas The first relates to houseboats on a canal in resulted from the roadshows. (Interview 5) Amsterdam. The planning proposal of the MoA called for the removal of some of The objections were diffuse: some people them, an idea fiercely opposed by the own- found that car traffic was insufficiently ers. The planners visited them to explain restricted and demanded more space for why they wanted to remove the houseboats pedestrians and bikes, while others wanted and to hear the objections. The chief planner less restriction. Furthermore, limiting car involved in the process explained: traffic within the project area meant re- routing it toward other districts, which We decided at the weekend to go to the people. sparked disagreement there. One group has We asked ‘can we come and drink coffee with organised opposition under the slogan ‘Rode you?’ We spent all Saturday going from boat Loper Centrum Sloper’ (Red Carpet Centre to boat. At the end of the day we decided to Breaker). Some people have shifted from stop the proposal. The people explained their agreement to disagreement and vice versa. position, and we were convinced that they had Consider the standpoint of shopkeepers in the right to be there. (Interview 2) the project area: In this case, the planner helped the commu- Two-and-a-half years ago they did not want nity by acting as a professional companion. us to do anything that would have a negative It shows that creative consensus-seeking influence on cars. Now they have completely initiatives taken by planners may be advan- changed and are the driving force behind extra tageous to the community, contradicting the steps to limit car traffic. (Interview 5) assumption that consensus is a technocratic 752 Urban Studies 56(4) instrument of the bureaucratic and business possible consequences. For example, one elites. group insisted on a tunnel to facilitate car traffic and the planner we interviewed Planner as co-creator explained what they did:

The role of a planner as a co-creator is still We said ‘we will design that for you’, and in an experimental stage. It embodies the made a model tunnel. It revealed that we most advanced level of accommodativeness, would have to tear down almost every build- corresponding to co-production or co-deci- ing to create a tunnel. They saw that it would sion, whereby the planner acts as a guiding not work. (Interview 3) associate of the public (Dimeglio, 2005; Zetlaoui-Le´ger, 2007, cited in Gardesse, Thus, good listening and visualisation skills 2015). The essence of this approach is that it are critical to the role of co-creator. These gives people the opportunity to plan a cer- skills help planners understand and respond tain area themselves under the supervision to ideas coming from a wide range of people. of planners and communication experts. Furthermore, the visualisation tool for the We illustrate this role by presenting two workshops was not used in a technocratic cases. The first dates back to the late 1990s, way but interactively to show people the when co-creation was used experimentally in down-to-earth outcomes of their ideas and an ‘open planning process’ for a street wishes. It helped them achieve a mutual (Wibautstraat) and its surroundings, which understanding on certain aspects and elimi- had both residential and commercial func- nate other options and to arrive at a deci- tions. In order to make the plan, the MoA sion, which is necessary at the end of the organised a series of workshops for 600 peo- day. As stressed by the same planner, visuali- ple in three categories: residents – also sation helped them ease the everlasting polit- from migrant groups such as members of a ical fights and enabled a more efficient use of large Turkish women’s organisation; public resources in the planning phase. non-residents from the construction and The second case is taken from the plan- infrastructure sectors; and chambers of com- ning process of Zuidas, the South Axis merce. The interactive ‘workshopping’ lasted Project,4 a large-scale scheme to create a new more than half a year, as citizens and plan- Central Business District on the southern ners developed plans together. The main dis- edge of Amsterdam. We interviewed the per- pute among the participants was about car son responsible for the overall planning pro- traffic: the residents usually wanted less traf- cess in the area. Since the Zuidas is large and fic or none at all, whereas the non-residents multi-functional, the planning team worked were more concerned about the economic in various smaller project groups with the vitality of the area and were in favour of residents and people working in the area. cars. When these workshops ended, each Two co-creation processes are expanded on group submitted its proposals to the munici- here: a park and a public square. The park pal commission, where rounds of discussions had to be reconstructed since energy pipe- and objections went on for a few more years. lines were to pass through it underground, The result was a compromise between sup- requiring the removal of trees and the reloca- porters of more traffic and less traffic. Of tion and redesign of other facilities. The key importance here is how co-creation planners and the people who lived around worked in practice. The people brought in the park or frequented it worked together on ideas, while the planners showed them the a new plan for the park and its surroundings. O¨ zdemir and Tasan-Kok 753

During this co-creation effort, the participat- their past top-down initiatives, inspired us to ing residents came up with three alternative emphasise the human dimension of the plan- designs, which were presented to the city ners’ role, which we see as the main thrust of council for a final decision. As in the previ- this article. ous case, planners had direct communication with people about what kind of a park they wanted and what the concrete outcomes of Concluding remarks their proposals would be when implemented. This article reconsiders consensus within According to the planner, this illustrates an urban planning in light of the roles of plan- important shift: ners in accommodating disagreements of citizens in their overall consensus-building In the past, we didn’t engage in any co-creation efforts. Our conclusions have further impli- with the neighbourhoods. We just made a plan, cations both for the post-political critique top-down. In recent years we have been trying and for urban planning. to co-create, and try to avoid making plans and saying ‘this is it!’ (Interview 7) The post-political critique argues that consensus approach and the inherent expert The design of the public square was knowledge and action tolerate systemic approached in a similar manner, though problems and circumvent disagreements starting with stakeholder analysis: identify- while repressing people by enforcing estab- ing residents, workers, renters, cyclists or lished agendas. Following Rancie` re, they are pedestrians. Co-creation was carried out often equated with the police, whose primary through direct communication and sup- role ‘is to control disruptive political acts’ ported by online consultation to reach out (Nicholls and Uitermark, 2016). Considering to a wider public. The planners also used the the contradictions that contribute to the neo- visualisation tool. They sketched a design liberalisation of urban planning, there is based on the ideas people brought in and some truth in that critique. There are obvi- made an animated movie of the sketch. ously situations where expertise is used as a They posted the movie online, gathered fur- means to neoliberal ends; however, the situa- ther feedback and redesigned the square tion is not black and white, and based on accordingly. The planner who was involved our case study with Amsterdam’s urban planners, we think that this critique involves in the exercise explained it thus: a flawed perception about expertise. It treats You do not only make a plan for an area, you expert knowledge devoid of its human pos- are making a place for people where they can sessors. Here, we draw attention to the fact feel comfortable. We see them sometimes and that the possessors of expertise are at the they feel very happy because we changed the final resort human beings, who have differ- design based on what they said to us. ent backgrounds, worldviews, personalities, (Interview 7) emotions and sensitivities, and who interact with other actors and develop subjectivities. The practices illustrated above might seem For example, some might be personally in to be micro examples. However, they are all favour of an anti-capitalist revolution and voluntary initiatives of planners to identify act with such sentiments in their professional people’s needs and possible disagreements. life. The study Penpeciog˘lu and Tasan-Kok Furthermore, the enthusiasm shown by the (2016) and Tasan-Kok et al. (2016) on young planners when telling about these experi- urban planners is helpful to show the very ences, but also their self-criticism regarding different orientations experts might have. 754 Urban Studies 56(4)

Put differently, the agency of experts, includ- by-pass mechanisms of the neoliberal urban ing the human dimension of their function- development dynamics, but they show that ing, matters. As we aim to show in this the situation is not unequivocal either. article, a consensus-seeking environment can mobilise this agency of experts to go out and Acknowledgements look for possible disagreements and try to We would like to thank TU Delft, OTB - accommodate them. Research for the Built Environment for the Based on examples from Amsterdam on resources and academic support they provided how non-formal opposition channels can be for this research. established by planners having different and more human roles; and channels that try to Declaration of conflicting interests offer ‘the part for those who have no-part’ The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of (Rancie` re, 2001: 6), we have shown that con- interest with respect to the research, authorship, sensus may be possible and desirable, and and/or publication of this article. should be considered as a context-dependent, dynamic and conflict-sensitive process, rather Funding than a static and pre-defined outcome. Thus, The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following we have argued that consensus-seeking is an financial support for the research, authorship, important tool to discover disagreements that and/or publication of this article: This research would otherwise remain unsaid or uncovered. was funded by the Scientific and Technological The post-political critics could argue that our Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). local examples are not so meaningful for they Notes do not involve structural and systemic conflicts. However, we attach importance to local 1. Available at: https://dezwijger.nl/over-ons/ practices following Loftus’ (2014) argument, about-us/. 2. Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/pro- that we should avoid the theorist’s detachment jecten/overhoeks-stedelijke/. from such specific practices. And following 3. Available at: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/ Larner (2014), we prefer not to quickly dis- archives/2017/01/amsterdam-officials-agree- miss local initiatives as simply ‘more neoliber- to-build-a-bridge-over-the-ij/. alism’, but pay closer attention to them, since 4. Available at: https://www.amsterdam.nl/zui- they involve structural problems for those liv- das/. ing in these specific localities. Lastly, we go further to argue that these References non-formal channels of planners enabling Albrechts L (1991) Changing roles and positions opposition have the potential to let the ago- of planners. Urban Studies 28(1): 123–137. nistic encounters between different actors Albrechts L (2010) More of the same is not actually take place, and to provide the envi- enough! How could strategic spatial planning ronment for the performance of political acts be instrumental in dealing with the challenges and possible linkages between local problems ahead? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 37(6): 1115–1127. with more systemic ones. There is need for Arampatzi A and Nicholls WJ (2012) The urban further empirical research on different chan- roots of anti-neoliberal social movements: The nels by which planning do not operate as the case of Athens, Greece. Environment and Plan- police, but enable and learn from opposition, ning A 44(11): 2591–2610. with special attention to unveiling the above Attuyer K (2015) When conflict strikes: Contest- mentioned possible linkages. These ‘efforts’ ing neoliberal urbanism outside participatory do not obviously alter or challenge the structures in inner-city Dublin. International O¨ zdemir and Tasan-Kok 755

Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39(4): Castells M (1983) The City and the Grassroots. 807–823. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bond S (2011) Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: Castells M (1996) The Rise of the Network Soci- Moving beyond the agonistic-communicative ety. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. divide. Planning Theory 10(2): 161–186. Clifford B and Tewdwr-Jones M (2013) The Col- Bond S, Diprose G and McGregor A (2015) 2Pre- laborating Planner? Practitioners in the Neolib- cious2Mine: Post-politics, colonial imaginary, eral Age. Bristol: The Policy Press. or hopeful political moment? Antipode 47(5): Diken B (2014) Religious antinomies of post-poli- 1161–1183. tics. In: Wilson J and Swyngedouw E (eds) The Beaumont J and Loopmans M (2008) Towards Post-Political and its Discontents: Spaces of radicalized communicative rationality: Resi- Depoliticization, Spectres of Radical Politics. dent involvement and urban democracy in Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. Rotterdam and Antwerp. International Journal 126–144. of Urban and Regional Research 32(1): 95–113. Dimeglio P (2005) Proposition de charte de pro- Beaumont J and Nicholls W (2008) Plural gov- grammation concerte´e et participative. Urba- ernance, participation and democracy in cities. nisme, dossier Ville et De´mocratie 342 (May/ International Journal of Urban and Regional June): 73–77. Research 32(1): 87–94. Eraydin A and Tasan-Kok MT (2014) State Bengs C (2005) Planning theory for the naive? response to contemporary urban movements European Journal of Spatial Development July. in Turkey: A critical overview of state entre- Available at: http://www.nordregio.se/en/Eur preneurialism and authoritarian interventions. opean-Journal-of-Spatial-Development/Debate/. Antipode 46(1): 110–129. Blakeley G (2010) Governing ourselves: Citizen Faludi A and Van der Valk A (1994) Rule and participation and governance in Barcelona and Order: Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twenti- Manchester. International Journal of Urban eth Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic and Regional Research 34(1): 130–145. Publishers. Blu¨hdorn (2014) Post-ecologist governmentality: Fainstein S (2010) The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Post-democracy, post-politics and the politics Cornell University Press. of unsustainability. In: Wilson J and Swynge- Fainstein SS (2000) New directions in planning douw E (eds) The Post-Political and its Discon- theory. Urban Affairs Review 35(4): 451–478. tents: Spaces of Depoliticization, Spectres of Fainstein SS and Fainstein NI (1985) Economic Radical Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni- restructuring and the rise of urban social versity Press, pp. 146–166. movements. Urban Affairs Quarterly 21(2): Bond S (2011) Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: 187–206. Moving beyond the agonistic-communicative Flyvbjerg B (1998) Empowering civil society: Haber- divide. Planning Theory 10(2): 161–186. mas, Foucault and the question of conflict. In: Brand R and Gaffikin F (2007) Collaborative Douglass M and Friedmann J (eds) Cities planning in an uncollaborative world. Plan- for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Soci- ning Theory 6(3): 282–313. ety in a Global Age.NewYork:Wiley,pp. Breheny M and Low M (1995) The planner as 185–211. impresario? Environment and Planning B 22(1): Forester J (1980) Critical theory and planning 1–4. practice. Journal of the American Planning Campbell H, Malcolm T and Watkins C (2014) Is Association 46(3): 275–286. there a space for better planning in a neolib- Forester J (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. eral world? Implications for planning practice Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. and theory. Journal of Planning Education and Forester J (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy, Research 34(1): 45–59. and Planning Practice. Toward a Critical Prag- Castells M (1977) The Urban Question. London: matism. Albany, NY: State University of New Edward Arnold Ltd. York Press. 756 Urban Studies 56(4)

Forester J (2009) Dealing with Differences: Dra- Hillier J (2003) ‘Agon’izing over consensus: Why mas of Mediating Public Disputes. Oxford: Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Planning Oxford University Press. Theory 2(1): 37–59. Forester J (2013) Planning in the Face of Conflict: Hoekveld and Needham B (2013) Planning prac- The Surprising Possibilities of Facilitative tice between ethics and the power game: Leadership. Chicago, IL: APA. Making and applying an ethical code for Fox-Rogers L and Murphy E (2015) Self-percep- planning agencies. International Journal of tions of the role of the planner. Environment Urban and Regional Research 37(5): and Planning B 47: 1–19. 1638–1653. Gardesse C (2015) The fraught ‘menage a trois’ of Huxley M (2000) The limits to communicative public actors, private players and inhabitants: planning. Journal of Planning Education and Problems of participation in French urban Research 19(4): 369–377. development projects. Urban Studies 52(16): Innes J (1996) Planning through consensus build- 3035–3053. ing: A new view of the comprehensive plan- Glasbergen P (2002) The green polder model: ning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Institutionalizing multi-stakeholder processes Association 62(4): 460–472. in strategic environmental decision-making. Laclau E and Mouffe C (1985) Hegemony and European Environment 12(6): 305–315. Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Demo- Grange K (2012) Shaping acting space: In search cratic Politics. London: Verso. of a new political awareness among local Larner W (2014) The limits of post-politics: authority planners. Planning Theory 12(3): Rethinking radical social enterprise. In: 225–243. Wilson J and Swyngedouw E (eds) The Gualini E (2015) Conflict in the city: Democratic, Post-Political and its Discontents: Spaces of Emancipatory – And transformative? In depoliticization, Spectres of Radical Politics. search of the political in planning conflicts. In: Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. Gualini E (ed.) Planning and Conflict: Critical 189–207. Perspectives on Contentious Urban Develop- Loftus (2014) Against a speculative leftism. In: ments. New York: Routledge. Wilson J and Swyngedouw E (eds) The Post- Gunton TI, Peter T and Day JC (2007) Evaluat- Political and its Discontents: Spaces of Depoli- ing collaborative planning: A case study of a ticization, Spectres of Radical Politics. Edin- Land and Resource Management Planning burgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 229– process. Environments 34(3): 5–12. 242. Habermas J (1984) The Theory of Communicative MacLeod G and McFarlane C (2014) Introduc- Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationaliza- tion: Grammars of urban injustice. Antipode tion of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 46(4): 857–873. Harris N (2002) Collaborative planning. In: All- Marcuse P (2009) From critical urban theory to mendinger P and Tewdwr-Jones M (eds) Plan- the right to the city. City 13(2–3): 186–197. ning Futures: New Directions for Planning Martı´nez M (2011) The citizen participation of Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 21–43. urban movements in spatial planning: A com- Harvey D (2003) The right to the city. Interna- parison between Vigo and Porto. International tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35(1): 27(4): 939–941. 147–171. Harvey D (2008) The right to the city. New Left Mayer M (2000) Urban social movements in an Review 53: 23–41. era of globalization. In: Hamel P, Lustiger- Healey P (1996) The communicative turn in plan- Thaler H and Mayer M (eds) Urban Move- ning theory and its implications for spatial ments in a Globalizing World. London: Routle- strategy formation. Environment and Planning dge, pp. 131–151. B 23(2): 217–234. Mayer M (2009) The ‘Right to the City’ in the Healey P (2003) Collaborative planning in per- context of shifting mottos of urban social spective. Planning Theory 2(2): 101–123. movements. City 17(1): 5–19. O¨ zdemir and Tasan-Kok 757

Merrifield A (2014) The enigma of revolt: Mili- Pickvance CG (2003) From urban social move- tant politics in a ‘post-political’ age. In: Wilson ments to urban movements: A review and J and Swyngedouw E (eds) The Post-Political introduction to a symposium on urban move- and its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticization, ments. International Journal of Urban and Spectres of Radical Politics. Edinburgh: Edin- Regional Research 27(1): 102–109. burgh University Press, pp. 279–298. Pierre J (2005) The Politics of Urban Governance. Metzger J (2011) Neither revolution, nor resigna- Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. tion: (Re)Democratizing contemporary plan- Pruijt H (2003) Is the institutionalisation of urban ning praxis: A commentary on Allmendinger movements inevitable? A comparison of the and Haughton’s ‘Spatial planning, devolution, opportunities for sustained squatting in New and new planning spaces’. Environment and York City and Amsterdam. International Journal Planning C: Government and Policy 29: of Urban and Regional Research 27(1): 133–57. 191–196. Pruijt H (2004) The impact of citizens’ protest on Miller B and Nicholls WJ (2013) Social move- city planning in Amsterdam. In: Deben L, ments in urban society: The city as a space of Salet W and Van Thoor M (eds) Cultural Heri- politicization. Urban Geography 4(4): 452–473. tage and the Future of the Historic Inner City of Mouffe C (1999) Deliberative democracy or ago- Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Aksant, pp. 228–244. nistic pluralism. Social Research 66(3): Purcell M (2002) Excavating Lefebvre: The right 745–757. to the city and its urban politics of the inhabi- Mouffe C (2005) On the Political (Thinking in tant. GeoJournal 58: 99–108. Action). London: Routledge. Purcell M (2009) Resisting neoliberalization: Needham B (2005) The new Dutch Spatial Plan- Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic ning Act: Continuity and change in the way in movements? Planning Theory 8(2): 140–165. which the Dutch regulate the practice of spa- Purcell M (2013) Possible worlds: Henri Lefebvre tial planning. Planning Practice and Research and the right to the city. Journal of Urban 20(3): 327–340. Affairs 36(1): 141–154. Nicholls WJ and Uitermark J (2016) Introduc- Raco M (2016) State-led Privatisation and the tion: Planning/resistance. Urban Geography Demise of the Democratic State: Welfare 38(4): 512–520. Reform and Localism in an Era of Regulatory Nicholls WJ and Vermeulen F (2012) Rights Capitalism. London: Routledge. through the City: The urban basis of immi- Rancie` re J (2001) Ten theses on politics. Theory grant rights struggles in Paris and Amsterdam. and Event 5(3): 1–21. In: Smith MP and McQuarrie M (eds) Remaking Rancie` re J (2004a) Disagreement: Politics and Phi- Urban Citizenship: Organizations, Institutions, losophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Min- and the Right to the City. New Brunswick, NJ: nesota Press. Transactions Publishers, pp. 79–96. Rancie` re J (2004b) Introducing disagreement. O¨zdemir E and Eraydin A (2017) Fragmentation Angelaki 9(3): 3–9. in urban movements: The role of urban plan- Rancie` re J (2010) Dissensus: On Politics and Aes- ning processes. International Journal of Urban thetics. London: Continuum. and Regional Planning forthcoming. Rannila P and Loivaranta T (2015) Planning as Penpeciog˘lu M and Tasxan-Kok T (2016) Alie- dramaturgy: Agonistic approaches to spatial nated and politicized? Young planners’ con- enactment. International Journal of Urban and frontation with entrepreneurial and Regional Research 39(4): 788–806. authoritarian state intervention in urban Roy P (2015) Collaborative planning – A neolib- development in Turkey. European Planning eral strategy? A study of the Atlanta Beltline. Studies 24(6): 1037–1055. Cities 43: 59–68. Pickvance C (1976) On the study of urban social Sager T (1994) Communicative Planning Theory. movements. In: Pickvance C (ed.) Urban Aldershot: Ashgate. Sociology: Critical Essays. London: Tavistock Sager T (2005) Communicative planners as naive Publications, pp. 198–218. mandarins of the neo-liberal state? European 758 Urban Studies 56(4)

Journal of Spatial Development December. Uitermark J (2009) An in memoriam for the just Available at: http://www.nordregio.se/en/Eur- city of Amsterdam. City 13(2): 347–361. opean-Journal-of-Spatial-Development/Debate/. Uitermark J and Duyvendak JW (2008) Sager T (2006) The logic of critical communica- Citizen participation in a mediated age: Neigh- tive planning: Transaction cost alteration. bourhood governance in the Netherlands. Planning Theory 5(3): 223–254. International Journal of Urban and Regional Sager T (2009) Planners’ role: Torn between dia- Research 32(1): 114–134. logical ideals and neo-liberal realities. Eur- Uitermark J and Nicholls W (2013) From politici- opean Planning Studies 17(1): 65–84. zation to policing: The rise and decline of new Swyngedouw E (2005) Governance innovation social movements in Amsterdam and Paris. and the citizen: The Janus face of governance- Antipode 46(4): 970–991. beyond-the-state. Urban Studies 42(11): Van Assche K, Duineveld M and Beunen R (2014) 1991–2006. Power and contingency in planning. Environ- Swyngedouw E (2011) Interrogating post-demo- ment and Planning A 46(10): 2385–2400. cratization: Reclaiming egalitarian political Van Gent WPC (2013) Neoliberalization, housing spaces. Political Geography 30(7): 1–11. institutions and variegated gentrification: Swyngedouw E (2014) Insurgent architects, radi- How the ‘Third Wave’ broke in Amsterdam. cal cities and the promise of the political. In: Wil- International Journal of Urban and Regional sonJandSwyngedouwE(eds)The Post- Research 37(2): 503–522. Political and its Discontents: Spaces of Depolitici- Van Puymbroeck N and Oosterlynck S (2014) zation, Spectres of Radical Politics. Edinburgh: Opening up the post-political condition: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 169–188. Multiculturalism and the matrix of depoliticiza- Tasan-Kok T (2009) Entrepreneurial governance: tion. In: Wilson J and Swyngedouw E (eds) The Challenges of large-scale property-led Post-Political and its Discontents: Spaces of Depo- urban regeneration projects. Tijdschrift voor liticization, Spectres of Radical Politics. Edin- Economische en Sociale Geografie 101(2): burgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 86–108. 126–149. Van der Valk A (2002) The Dutch planning expe- Tasan-Kok T and Korthals Altes W (2012) rience. Landscape and Urban Planning 58(2–4): Rescaling Europe: Effects of Single European 201–210. Market regulations on localized networks of Voogd H and Woltjer J (1999) The communica- governance in land development. International tive ideology in spatial planning: Some critical Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36(6): reflections based on the Dutch experience. 1268–1287. Environment and Planning B 26(6): 835–854. Tasan-Kok T, Bertolini L, Oliveira e, Costa S, et Wassenberg F (2011) Large Housing Estates: al. (2016) ’Float like a butterfly, sting like a Ideas, Rise, Fall and Recovery. Amsterdam: bee’: Giving voice to planning practitioners. Delft University Press. Planning Theory & Practice 17(4): 621–651. Wilson J and Swyngedouw E (2014) Seeds of dys- Tasan-Kok T and Oranje M (2017) From Plan- topia: Post-politics and the return of the political. ning Student to Urban Planner: Young Practi- In: Wilson J and Swyngedouw E (eds) The Post- tioners’ Reflections on Contemporary Ethical Political and its Discontents: Spaces of Depolitici- Challenges. New York: Routledge. zation, Spectres of Radical Politics. Edinburgh: Terhorst P and van der Ven J (1998) Urban poli- Edinburgh University Press, pp. 1–22. cies and the ‘Polder Model’: Two sides of the Zetlaoui-Le´ger J (2007) Projet d’urbanisme et par- same coin. Tijdschrift voor Economische en ticipation des habitants, La programmation Sociale Geografie 89(4): 467–473. concee´rte et participative: Une de´marche heur- Udy J (1994) The planner: A comprehensive istique et de´mocratique pour les projets d’ur- typology. Cities 11(1): 25–34. banisme. Dossier HDR, Universite´Paris Val Uitermark J (2004) Framing urban injustices: The de Marne, Institut d’Urbanisme de Paris. case of the Amsterdam squatter movement. Zˇizˇek S (1999) The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Space and Polity 8(2): 227–244. Centre of Political Ontology. London: Verso. O¨ zdemir and Tasan-Kok 759

Appendix

Interviewees I Profession Task/institution

1 Urban Planner Spatial Planning Department, Municipality of Amsterdam (MoA) 2 Urban Planner Former Project Bureau Director, MoA 3 Urban Designer Spatial Planning Department, MoA 4 Architect Play the City Initiative 5 Project Manager Rode Loper-project (The Red Carpet: Refurbishment of public space above a new metro link), MoA 6 Project Manager Science Park Amsterdam, MoA 7 Urban Planner Zaudas Bussiness Centre Development Project, MoA 8 Urban Designer Spatial Planning Department, MoA 9 Urban Designer Spatial Planning Department, MoA 10 Planner / academic MoA, University of Amsterdam, PhD candidate 11 Architect Arch-Lokaal (company) 12 Architect Arch-Lokaal (company) 13 Academic Delft University of Technology 14 Academic University of Amsterdam