By Giving Our Back to the River, We Cannot Find Our City’S Future: Planning for the Fu- Ture Or the Future Demanding for Planning?

BY GIVING OUR BACK TO THE RIVER, WE CANNOT FIND OUR CITY’S FUTURE: PLANNING FOR THE FU- TURE OR THE FUTURE DEMANDING FOR PLANNING?

A Case Study of Decision-Making Around Parque del Río Medellín

Master Thesis Urban and Regional Planning Juan Rafael Peláez Arango 24/01/2014

By Giving our Back to the River, We Cannot Find our City’s Future: Planning for the Fu- ture or the Future Demanding for Planning? A Case Study of Decision-Making Around Parque del Río Medellín University of Amsterdam Master Thesis Urban and Regional Planning

By: Juan Rafael Peláez Arango1 Student number: 10298487

Address: K 29 E No 11 sur 110 Medellín 050022, Colombia Phone: +57 300-299-8573 Email: [email protected]

Supervisor: Dr. ir. Sebastian Dembski

Address: Plantage Muidergracht 14 1018 TV Amsterdam Phone: +31 020 5251497 Email: [email protected]

Second reader: Prof. Dr. Willem Salet

Address: Plantage Muidergracht 14 1018 TV Amsterdam Phone: +31 020 5254039 Email: [email protected]

1 Beneficiario COLFUTURO 2011 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... 5 Acknowledgements ...... 6 List of Abbreviations ...... 7 List of Figures ...... 8 List of Tables ...... 8 1. Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Problem Statement ...... 9 1.2 Objective ...... 10 1.3 Research Question(s) ...... 11 1.4 Research Methodology ...... 11 1.5 Thesis Statement ...... 13 1.6 Thesis Outline ...... 13 2. Towards New Ways of Governing Modern Societies ...... 14

2.1 The Shift Towards Governance ...... 14 2.2 Interactive Governance ...... 15

2.3 Metropolitan Governance in Latin America ...... 18

2.4 Decision-Making in the Planning Domain ...... 21 2.5 The Role of Participation in Planning ...... 22

3. Context: Planning, Geography and Spatial Development in Colombia and the Aburrá Valley ...... 26

3.1 Republic of Colombia ...... 26 3.2 Planning System in Colombia ...... 26 3.3 Geography and Planning in the Aburrá Valley ...... 28 3.4 A Historic Account of Urban Development of the Aburrá Valley ...... 32 3.5 The Three Land Use Plans in Medellín: Planning for the Future or the Future De- manding for Planning? ...... 35

3.6 Case Warm up: Current Conditions of the Medellín River ...... 37

3.7 BIO 2030 Plan ...... 41

4. Empirical Findings: Case Study Parque del Río Medellín and Decision-Making Process ...... 44

4.1 Introduction ...... 44 4.2 What is Parque del Río Medellín? ...... 44 4.3 PRM Parque del Río Medellín Round (2012-2013) ...... 48 4.4 Actors and Decisions in the PRM Round: Degree of Influence, Resources and Inter- ests ...... 50 4.5 The Actor’s Perceptions on Problems and Goals: Is there Consensus? ...... 54 4.6 Arenas for Interaction ...... 57 4.6.1 An Expert Arena: An ‘Insulated Scenario’? ...... 57

4.6.2 A Citizen-Local Government Arena: Where Did Public Participation Go? .... 61

5. Un-Expected Findings and Reflections ...... 67

5.1 The Role of the Mayor of Medellín: Is the Project Safeguarded? ...... 67 5.2 Regulations And Are Voids Bridgeable? ...... 70 5.3 Can We Really Speak of Urban Planning in Medellín? ...... 72 6. Conclusions ...... 75

6.1 Overview of Investigation, Findings and Expectations ...... 75 6.2 (Un)Expected Revelations ...... 79 6.3 Limitations of the Investigation and Reflection ...... 81 7. Epilogue ...... 83

References...... 84

Appendixes ...... 91

a. Interviews ...... 91 b. Coding ...... 91

ABSTRACT

The shift from government to governance has committed its goal to realize a more inclusive and plural way to govern contemporary societies. It has allowed the different actors to in- terrelate themselves in decision-making processes around strategic metropolitan projects. Citizen participation is also increasingly playing a role in the planning domain, as the traditional role of government as the main decision-maker, becomes challenged or accompanied by new and emerging participatory structures. The recent literature on governance in the Latin American metropolitan context is just developing, as the term first appeared in the region in the 1990s. Although the region is advancing into the consolidation of governance structures, the metropolitan institutional framework is still deficient in the region for its short-lived background in democracy.

By delving the context of the Aburrá Valley in Colombia, the present thesis is based on a single case study investigation which uses two frameworks: governance and citizen participation. The thesis aims to answer the question: How have the different actors been interrelated in the decision-making process of Parque del Río Medellín and what were the policy outcomes? Parque del Río Medellín is a project that not only aims to enhance the deficit of public space in the city and improve mobility and quality of life conditions for its inhabitants, but also to challenge the current land use model which has saturated to an almost unsustainable point the slopes of the valley. The results of the investigation achieved through elite semi-structured interviews, show that public sector actors deploy enormous amounts of resources and decision-making capacity, while civil society actors mildly influence the decision-making process. On the other hand, the role of citizen participation around the project resembles classic ‘tokenism’ or symbolic participation achieved through ‘imaginary workshops’, ‘socializations’ or round tables. Finally, the investigation reveals the role of the municipal mayor and his ‘political’ will is crucial to understand the present and future a project, that while is strategic, paradoxically receives scarce attention on behalf of the citizens or other civil society actors.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AMVA Área Metropolitana del Valle de Aburrá (Geographic Area)

AMVA Área Metropolitana del Valle de Aburrá (Public Sector Actor)

BIO 2030 Plan Director de Medellín y el Valle de Aburrá (Director Plan of

Medellín and the Aburrá Valley)

CIVETS Emerging Market Economies (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt,

Turkey, South Africa)

CONPES Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social (National

Council of Economic and Social Policy)

CTP Consejo Territorial de Planeación (Territorial Planning Council)

DAP Departamento Administrativo de Planeación (Planning Department)

[Municipal Agency]

DANE Departamento Nacional de Estadística (National Statistics

Department) [National Agency]

DNP Departamento Nacional de Planeación (National Planning

Department) [National Agency]

EDU Empresa de Desarrollo Urbano (Urban Development Corporation)

EPM Empresas Públicas de Medellín (Medellín’s Public Services

Corporation)

LCV “La Ciudad Verde” (“The Green City”)

MCV “Medellín Cómo Vamos” (“Medellín How Are We Doing”)

POT Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial (Land Use Plan)

PRM Parque del Río Medellín (Policy Round)

SCA Sociedad Colombiana de Arquitectos (Colombian Society of Architects)

VCPD Veeduría Ciudadana al Plan de Desarrollo (Citizen Oversight Body to the Municipal Development Plan)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Rounds Model 22 Figure 2 Decision-making Rounds Parque del Río Medellín 22 Figure 3 The “Eight Rungs” of the Ladder of Citizen Participation 24 Figure 4 Democracy Cube 25 Figure 5 Relationship River-Plain-Slope in the AMVA 29 Figure 6 The AMVA in the Continental and National Context 30 Figure 7 (Municipal) Administrative Division AMVA 31 Figure 8 AMVA Growth and Expansion Through Time 35 Figure 9 Medellin River (circa 1870) 38 Figure 10 Medellin River (1890) 39 Figure 11 Medellin River Canalization Works Begin (1956-1958) 39 Figure 12 River Canalized and Road Network (1970) ‘La 33’ Bridge 40 Figure 13 Medellin River Fully Canalized in an Expanding City (1974) 40 Figure 14 Regional Motorway along the River (present-day) 41 Figure 15 Pedestrian Bridge Over River 46 Figure 16 Bird’s-Eye View Over Pilot Project 47 Figure 17 Sections Parque del Río Medellín 48 Figure 18 Timeline and phases of “Parque del Rio Medellin” 61

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Characteristics of Governance Networks 17 Table 2 Colombia’s Planning System 28 Table 3 Public Sector Governance Structure of the AMVA (Medellín) 32 Table 4 City Model Proposed in the Land Use Plan (POT) 36 Table 5 Current Conditions of the Medellín River 38 Table 6 Participating Actors in BIO 2030 42 Table 7 BIO 2030 Proposal for Land Occupation in the AMVA 42 Table 8 Where Should We Go? - Strategic Geographic Scenarios: 43 The River as Axis of Transformations and Heart of the Metropolis Table 9 What Should We Do? - Strategic Objectives 43 Table 10 Final Evaluation Criteria 59

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Statement

Through the times, the connections between cities and their natural structuring elements (rivers, plains, slopes, mountains, or others) have been regarded as ‘givens’ to achieve, mainly, urban development pressures (industry, sanitation, mobility, housing). In particular, despite the importance of urban rivers for urban growth, little has been done understand the relationship and even more, the impacts, they have over a city. Few examples exist that can account for a ‘replacement’ or ‘preservation’ to the modification of the hydro-systems to achieve development pressures. Recently, ecologists have started to collaborate with planners, scientists and engineers to give a meaning to these ‘ascendant ecosystems’ (cf. Grimm, Faeth, Golubiewski, Redman, Wu, Bai, Briggs, 2008).

In Colombia (northwestern South America), the Medellín (Aburrá) River crosses the Aburrá Valley for about 30 kilometers touching the 10 municipalities part of the metropolitan area (AMVA). In Medellín, the core municipality, its historic relationship with the river has been mainly centered to serve industrial and mobility demands; events that created a barrier or fringe within the city, a ‘no man’s land’, a place without ‘soul’. This historic fact has yielded a unique impact on the kind of land use planning and territorial occupation for the city of Medellín (cf. Alcaldía de Medellín, 2011).

Despite a couple of (unsuccessful) attempts have been made during the last 60 years to incorporate the river into the city’s urban fabric through pilot plans and other architectonic and urbanistic proposals (foreign and national), only until 2012, a serious concrete planning project has been promoted by the municipal government. The project Parque del Río Me- dellín has been formally framed as a strategic metropolitan project in 2012. The project aims to change the river into the metropolis’ environmental and public space axis. Without losing its current use of arranger of mobility for the city and the region, the river scenario will become in the structuring and integrating element of the different structuring systems found in the valley (environment, landscape, public space and mobility and transportation). This means the current motorway running through both sides of the river should not only be kept, but enhanced. On the other hand, the restoration of the environmental milieu should also be compatible with the river’s natural characteristics. This means, the project aims to resolve both a problem of mobility and public space, and a new orientation of land use planning.

But strategic projects have a long process of decision-making and interrelation between different actors before, during and after they get built. This thesis uses the governance approach as a paradigm to observe the coordination of different actors (state and civil society) to produce better plans. The classic role of government intervention on public issues (top- down approach) is no longer taken as given because new structures of participation, delib-

eration and policy-making are emerging. (cf. Stoker, 1998; Jessop, 2000; Bevir, 2011; Sørensen & Torfing, 2009)

By using the analytical framework of the ‘rounds’ model, where decisions are result of the interaction between different actors (cf. Teisman, 2000; van Gils and Klijn, 2007), the selected case study will be analyzed. The Parque del Río Medellín (PRM) round officially began on January 1st 2012, when the current Mayor of Medellín took office for the period 2012-2015. In the city’s Municipal Development Plan for the mayor’s period, the Parque del Río Medellín was included as a ‘flagship project’. In November of that year, a project bureau was created. Since then, the different actors have had their perceptions on problems, goals, resources and means to shape the decision-making process. The (interim) progress of the project has been a product of their interactions.

On the other hand, citizen participation is also as important. Issues related to stakeholder participation are embedded in the claims of governments to achieve a more collaborative, democratic and participatory planning process in governance structures (Brody, Godschalk & Burby, 2003). Hence, as metropolitan areas undertake actions to design policies and projects that are both strategic and innovative, it should be expected that public participation plays an active and decisive role because of the fact that the public will become first-hand users of those projects (Sørensen, 2013:75). “This begins from the assumption that all those who are affected by a given decision have the right to participate in the making of that decision” (Edelenbos, van Schie & Gerrits; 2010:78). Participation can take many forms such as citizen panels, charters, interactive decision-making or citizen deliberation (Arnstein, 1969). It is the process in which information, ideas, stances and inputs are made by the different actors involved, or platforms/spaces for ‘rational deliberative reasoning’.

Hence, this thesis aims to find how the main actors have interrelated in the decision-making process in the PRM round and what the (interim) policy outcomes were. The governance and citizen participation theories serve as theoretical standpoints for this investigation. By revealing such interaction, an important contribution can be made to the emerging studies of governance in the Latin American region (cf. Lefèvre, 2008; Klink, 2008) but also to a planner’s profession, who should be aware on how decisions in complex and strategic projects are made, what are the limits and possibilities the different actors have to shape a decision, and how do power relations affect the outcome of the policy process (Brody, Godschalk & Burby, 2003:259). Hence, the results help to contribute both to the scientific and societal discourses around the topic.

1.2 Objective

The following thesis will develop upon the governance framework in order to understand the decision-making process in the Parque del Río Medellín (PRM) round, and its main policy outcomes. The objective is to observe a decision-making phenomenon around a met-

ropolitan project, in order to draw some conclusions that can be helpful to understand governance and power structures in the context of the city of Medellín.

The above objective can be realized because of the early phase the project is currently at, allowing to researcher to follow closely the decision-making process.

1.3 Research Questions

With the above panorama in mind, I now present my main research question and sub- questions. The main research question is:

How have the different actors been interrelated in the decision-making process of Parque del Río Medellín and what were the policy outcomes?

The following sub-questions have been also identified and will be answered:

 What are the main attributes of governance versus traditional government?  What are the main characteristics of metropolitan governance in Latin America?  What is the role of citizen participation in decision-making?  Who were the main actors involved in the decision-making process and what were their main interests around the policy implementation?  What were the main policy arenas in the decision-making process and its outcomes?  How has citizen participation been linked to the decision-making process?

1.4 Research Methodology

The empirical chapter of this thesis will elaborate on a qualitative-exploratory research based on a single case study. The reason to choose a case study is because it is attempted to reveal and discover the decision-making process between the different actors involved in the PRM round and its interim policy results; therefore, the participation and inputs of the different actors involved on the decision-making process are very relevant. The case Parque del Río Medellín has been selected because of the current phase the project is at. In the meantime, the project has begun to achieve considerable importance within the metropolitan area, and new actors are starting to enter the decision-making process, build their own perceptions on problems and goals and have a say in the planning of the project. Few projects like the one chosen gather the amount of actors and are sufficiently visible in the city. Hence, it is not a neighborhood project, but one that transcends the city-region and at least three coming mayor administrations. The availability of empirical material and the readiness to contact relevant actors has been also considered as criteria to choose this case study.

The data collection methods have been achieved through semi-structured elite interviews, the study of policy documents, legislations and media (printed and digital). These methods

are best suited to answer both the main research question and its sub-questions. Following Beamer (2002:2) the advantages of elite interviews: “are particularly appealing at the sub- national level due to the abundance of and variation among subjects and the ready access to these subjects in the state”. Semi-structured interviews have been chosen as the preferred data collection method because it allows the interviewer both to follow a preconceived structure of interview style, but also it lets certain flexibility to the interviewee’s responses and allows obtaining data that is new or revealing to the researcher. Unstructured interviews are not contemplated because of matters related to replication.

As for data collection through media, this method has been very useful for the current investigation since the events around the case study were happening in ‘real-time’; this related to the early stage the project, which received an adequate media attention (press releases, newspaper articles, TV shows). The advantage of choosing an early stage case study, is that it allows the researcher to follow closely all the matters related to the progress the different actors make around the policy implementation.

As for the actors involved in PRM round, these were mainly two: the municipal government and the civil society. From the public sector, the actors included: Medellín’s planning department (DAP), the Urban Development Corporation (EDU) through the project bureau Parque del Río Medellín, and the Metropolitan Area of Aburrá Valley (AMVA). From the civil society, the involved actors were: the national platform for sustainable urban development “La Ciudad Verde” (LCV), the Citizen Oversight Body for the Municipal Devel- opment Plan (VCPD), the inter-institutional alliance “Medellín Cómo Vamos” (MCV), and the Territorial Planning Council (CTP).

The criterion to choose these actors is based on the type of research question. A decision- making process of a strategic project involves expertise, experience, visibility and knowledge of relevant actors in planning and social matters. Therefore, the identified actors are more often than not, present in decision-making processes around metropolitan projects in the Aburrá Valley. This selection prevents from choosing other actors who are not fully involved in a decision-making process and who could bring information that does not fulfill the aims research question scope.

As for the methods of analysis, the interviews were voice recorded, translated from Spanish to English, and finally transcribed. ATLAS.ti was used as software to codify responses into main topics or patterns (codes) and relate them to interviewees’ responses. During the elaboration of the semi-structured elite interview guide, the questions were grouped by topics, facilitating the coding procedure and its analysis. After writing the transcriptions and re- viewing them, codes were identified and the analysis of information could be produced. Initially, there were a total of 14 codes (see Annex ‘b’ for detail). These codes included some that came upon (un-expected) and were recurrent through the different interviewees’ responses. This means some codes that were not part of the interview guide, resulted in new

ones since the recurrence in the different interviews made the researcher to include them in the analysis. Finally, to facilitate the coding process, these were grouped by affinity or proximity of topic, for a final result of 6 groups of codes.

1.5 Thesis Statement

My thesis statement, or working hypothesis, is that despite public participation is a ‘key component’ in the planning practice and most of the times planners accept the fact that participation can produce (better) enduring plans (Brody, Godschalk & Burby, 2003), in practice, interactive governance and governmental decision-making processes live apart from each other (Edelenbos, van Schie & Gerrits; 2009:74). For instance, values, opinions and solutions resulting from the interactive process do not have a meaning in the formal decision making-process. Hence, there is a gap in what Fung (2006) refers to as: who participates, the communication and decision-making between participants, and the results of the discussions with policy outcomes or public action. Values, opinions, and solutions that result from the interactive process are not translated in regular governmental decision-making structures and vice-versa, or what Arnstein (1969:216) considers as the difference between going through the ‘empty ritual of participation’ and the power to affect policy outcomes.

1.6 Thesis Outline

The following thesis has a total of 6 chapters. Chapter one sets the problem statement, objectives, research question/sub-questions, research methodology and thesis statement. Chapter two includes the theoretical framework which presents the different discussions and theories that underpin the governance approach. In this chapter, the reader learns the distinctions between governance and government, interactive governance and metropolitan governance in the Latin American context, and the role of participation in the planning and decision-making domains, which accounts for the analytical framework. Chapter three pre- pares the reader to understand the empirical findings; the chapter presents the (national/local) context in which the case study takes place: its historic, geographic and urbanistic conditions, the planning systems, the governance structure and the current conditions of the case study Parque del Río Medellín. Chapter four includes a complete analysis of the decision-making process of the PRM round. The chapter presents the empirical findings and aims to answer the main sub-questions that guided the research. Chapter five contains (un) expected findings of the investigation, some reflections on the decision-making process of the project and how the main actors regard urban planning in Medellín. Finally, chapter six provides the main conclusions, limitations and reflections of the investigation.

2. TOWARDS NEW WAYS OF GOVERNING MODERN SOCIETIES

2.1 The Shift Towards Governance

Since the late twentieth century, governance has been the new ‘catchword’ to describe theories of social coordination. The term, as ubiquitous as it can be, has been indistinctively used in the fields of planning, political science, economy, health, environment, geography, sociology or public administration. In concrete, governance theories in the political science field place less emphasis on hierarchy and the state, and more expectations on the coordination of actors through networks (cf. Bevir, 2011). In the new practices of governance, the state is increasingly facing the emergence of new actors from the civil society, private firms, NGOs and others. According to Stoker (1998:17) following Rhodes (1996), governance means a change in the practice of government, which implies a new process of governing: “a new method by which society is governed”. Jessop (2000:17) considers governance as a framework in which relevant actors reach agreements on different issues, creating a ‘common world view’ and match the right solutions to perceived problems.

The following quotation, neatly demarcates the contrast between government and governance:

Whereas government is vertical and firmly institutionalized, governance is horizontal and flexible. Whereas government is formal and directed from above, governance is informal and self-regulating. Whereas higher level government (e.g. states) connects to localities through demarcated procedures, lower level governance (e.g. inter-local arrangements) is looser and less confined by boundaries. Government emphasizes the centralizing features of regionalism, whereas governance stresses the decentralizing virtues of local cooperation (Savitch and Vogel (2000: 62).

Nonetheless, the outputs of governance are not very different from the ones of government, since the ultimate goal is achieving a way of governing. This is both government and governance are concerned on the governing activity of societies. The main difference between them is how governing is done. Hence, the boundaries between the public and private sectors become blurred since governance is based on the premise that governing is not done through the authority of a central government.

On the other hand, governance is context-dependent. Both in developing and developed countries, the term has entered in the discourses of politics and elected officials are becoming concerned by emphasizing in the interrelation between public, private and other sectors. In developing countries for example, governance has appeared in the policy and decision- making arenas and has been used as a term to describe the commitment to the principles of efficient and accountable government, fostered mainly by the international organizations

such as the World Bank (cf. Stoker, 1998; World Bank, 1992). Osborne and Gaebler (1993) for example, in their acclaimed work “Reinventing Government”, address the shift from government ‘rowing’, to government ‘steering’, meaning that governance complements the role of governments’ provision of goods and services by innovating in ways of providing services to the communities through third parties and alliances different from the state. Stoker (1998) also notes that one of the main formal distinctions of government from governance is the shift from what it should be (the formalities), to ‘what it is’ or the behaviors. ‘What is’ implies recognizing messiness, complexity and reluctance to the central authority. Hence, it suggests the sharing of power and consensus in decision-making.

Innes and Booher (1999) highlight the importance of consensus building or participatory planning among different stakeholders in order to deal with complexity and uncertainty in planning tasks. They regard consensus building as the capacity of governments or legisla- tive bodies to bring in participants with different interests who engage in long-term, face- to-face discussions. The actor’s main intention is to reach consensus on strategies, plans, policies or actions. In the governmental sphere, consensus building has become a valuable instrument used by planners, developers, or environmentalists who are disenchanted by ongoing conflict and stalemate or by a loss of resources (Innes and Booher, 1999:11). Con- sensus building is an ad hoc process which is self-organizing and lacks of a chairperson, becoming a facilitated process. The added value of such participatory scenario is the use of ‘bricolage’, or a kind of strategy that, opposed to offering a straight-forward solution to a problem (like it is usually accustomed to in the classic state intervention), yields in a new way of framing a determined situation which will produce unanticipated (favorable) results. Such strategy involves innovation, learning and co-production of ideas among different parties.

In sum, although governance should not be understood as the replacement of government, it is one of the most inventive and innovative mechanisms to govern contemporary societies (Jessop, 2000:31). It is important to understand that both government and governance are subject to fail (cf. Jessop, 2000; Stoker, 1998). Although the state still provides basic services like national security or justice, the state apparatus also has imperfections and limitations that can be solved in much more efficient and inclusive ways through the governance framework. Perhaps, governance is the less imperfect way of governing contemporary societies. As Stoker (1998:26) concludes: “if the governance perspective is to be rejected it has to be on the basis that there is a better map or guide rather than on the basis that it fails to provide a comprehensive or definitive account”.

2.2 Interactive Governance

While governance suggests the importance of including not only the state but also the market and civil society in the way of governing modern societies, interactive governance is more concerned with the interactions and networking between entities belonging to these

parties. Some authors like Bingham, Nabatchi and O’Leary (2005), have given other names to this term as ‘new governance’, in which the citizenry (tool makers and users) participate in the work of government. This participation takes place in a variety of scenarios like public conversations, participatory budgeting, citizen juries, study circles, joint policy and decision-making.

Sørensen and Torfing (2009) define interactive governance or governance networks as:

A stable articulation of mutually dependent, but operationally autonomous actors from state, market and civil society, who interact through conflict-ridden negotiations that take place within an institutionalized framework of rules, norms, shared knowledge and social imaginaries; facilitate self-regulated policy-making in the shadow of hierarchy; and contribute to the production of ‘public value’ in a broad sense of problem definitions, visions, ideas, plans and concrete regulations that are deemed relevant to broad sections of the population. (Sørensen and Torfing, 2009:236)

Agranoff (2003) sees a potential in networking to yield better solutions in the public sphere. Deficiencies derived from the bureaucratic and political stances can be favorably alleviated by network performance and cohesion. Sørensen (2013) argues that arenas within governance structures such as networks and partnerships are regarded as valuable contribution to the production of effective public governance. Although such arenas do not count with sufficient power and authority to shape the final outcomes of a policy, they do tend to have ‘considerable’ influence on the results of governance processes. Sørensen (2013) also considers one of the main advantages of interactive governance is the low level of formal institutionalization which allows the networks to adapt and have certain flexibility.

On the other hand, Teisman (2000) considers citizens and stakeholders have valuable inputs to a project’s quality, as they can provide a variety of potential solutions. The value of in- volving different actors in decision-making processes around planning and infrastructural projects is particularly useful to create progress through a match of problems and solutions, he argues. Kooiman, Bavinck, Chuenpagdee, Mahon, & Pullin (2008), see interactive governance as a combination of governing efforts within a society to tackle or provide ‘answers’, solving societal problems and creating societal opportunities through interactions among civil, public and private actors to ever growing pressing global issues such as poverty or global warming.

Interactive governance however, also has its own limitations and shortcomings, as in the case of governance and government. Hence this way of governing is also prone to fail (cf. Jessop, 2000; Sørensen and Torfing, 2009). Despite being innovative in the governing of societies, interactive governance has both virtues and problems, as exemplified in the following quote:

Governance theorists express hopes that interactive governance will prove to become a positive contribution to representative and participatory forms democracy by enhancing the in-

teraction between political elites and those affected by the decisions they make, between national and local levels of governance and between different groups of stakeholders. Howev- er, there is also a widespread worry that interactive governance arenas will reduce the level of democratic inclusion, deliberation and accountability because they themselves are difﬁcult to institutionalize and regulate. (Sørensen, 2013:83)

In fact, Sørensen and Torfing (2009), following Agranoff and McGuire (2003), consider fewer expectations should be placed on interactive governance since there is ‘particularly nothing of efficient’ in joint decision-making. Despite it is true that collaboration and interrelation among different actors can help mobilize resources: “we should not forget that the transaction costs of networking are often high and networks might fall into the joint decision trap” (Sørensen and Torfing, 2009:240). Edelenbos, van Schie & Gerrits (2010) also consider that despite the advantages of interactive governance arenas:

In practice, interactive governance and regular governmental decision-making processes live apart from each other with the result that the content developed in both trajectories often do not become connected. Values, opinions, and solutions from the interactive process do not have meaning in regular governmental decision-making process and vice-versa. There is a missing institutional link between the interactive process and the formal decision- making process; the interactive process is dissociated from the existing institutional environment causing oftentimes deadlocks in the process. (Edelenbos, van Schie & Gerrits, 2010:74)

Table 1: Characteristics of Governance Networks

Context Characteristics

- Self-grown from below or above - Formal or informal Countries(developing/developed) - Intra or Inter-organizational Levels of governance - Open or closed Government tiers - Loose or tight Policy arenas - Short or long-lived - Sector specific or society-wide - Tackle policy formulation or implementation

Source: Sørensen and Torfing (2009) [own adaptation]

Despite critiques on the dangers interactive governance faces to more powerful and ‘institutionalized’ forces such as the traditional role of the state apparatus, networks and partnerships can still provide solutions within complex governance scenarios. For instance, Edelenbos, van Schie & Gerrits (2010) referring to interactive governance, consider crucial to understand the relationship between the different arenas (initiatives of citizen involvement, NGOs participation, citizen panels, citizen charters, new forms and participations)

and the existing democratic institutions. In a similar way, Scharpf (1999) implies that governance networks are context (country) dependent, and get formed to enhance the input (participation of social actors) and output (creation of program responsibility) legitimacy of the public sector. What should be considered is that, although governance is also prone to fail like government, it is more likely that governing through governance responds much better to the current political, social and economic problems current societies are facing. Hence, according to Enroth (2011:19) following Rhodes (1997): “messy problems need messy solutions”.

2.3 Metropolitan Governance in Latin America

The concept of governance was introduced in the region in the early 1990s by international organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Inter- American Development Bank. These organizations became crucial actors in recommending and suggesting the region’s countries the practice of “good governance” understood as: “the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country's economic and social resources for development” (World Bank, 1992). This led to the implementation of processes of decentralization (administrative and political), privatization (of public services), economic policy reforms and the participation of non-state stakeholders in public policies (Ramírez, 2011; Launay, 2007).

However, the institutionalization governance in Latin America has been a slow and more often than not, conflicting process. The fairly ‘new’ instauration of democracy in the region, after long periods of dictatorships in most of its countries, has slowed down the process to achieve democratic scenarios (cf. Klink, 2008). The precariousness of institutional apparatus and the ‘readiness’ of the region to respond to global issues such as globalization and market integration, have also hindered the possibilities to reach true democratic models that are up to the experiences in developed countries. According to Riggirozzi (2011) following Philips and Prieto Corredor (2011), a feature of governance in the region is the informal and weak role of non-state agencies and networks, which are often coordinated by state initiatives. To achieve a governance model, it is crucial the existence of:

[…] decentralized units of government, citizen participation structures, and organization representing agents interested in solving the problems of the metropolitan area. The metropolitan government should discuss its activities and policies with the citizens and respond to their questions […] in metropolitan areas with some form of governance, the issue of responsibility can be approached utilizing certain instruments, such as mandatory public hearings. (Cuadrado-Roura and Fernandez-Güell, 2008: 272).

Another feature to understand governance in Latin America is the disconnection between what Klink (2008) describes as product from process (emphasis on original). This means there is a missing link between the administration of metropolitan areas in terms of providing and delivering public goods and services and the democratic interactions in which dif-

ferent stakeholders and actors participate and have a voice to achieve an accountable governance system. If stakeholder and public participation has been present in the region, it has been mainly by the fostering of private investments, placing less attention on issues of direct or representative participation. Rodriguez-Acosta and Rosenbaum (2005), despite sharing Klink’s (2008) view of a ‘underrepresentation’, conclude that despite the precariousness in democratic participative scenarios, the region’s metropolitan areas have slowly begun to incorporate and experiment with: “the development of various forms of voluntary coopera- tive efforts at addressing regional problems […] the fact that these efforts are being initiat- ed represents in many instances a significant step forward for a region that has struggled for many years with issues of governance reform and innovation” (Rodriguez-Acosta and Ros- enbaum, 2005: 305).

In Colombia, the term governance has been used indistinctively from the term governability. There is a ‘semantic confusion’ of the application of both terms. Launay (2007:3), following Vidal- Beneyto (2002) considers the term governability (structures, institutions) which focuses on technical aspects and the functioning of institutions in search of a more efficient government, gave way to governance, which includes broader connotations and is more “politically-correct”. Hence, this implied a change of understanding the term as structure, to one in which it’s regarded as a process, regulations and interactions. Governance would then focus on the set of processes and interactions, with aims to achieve development and balance between actors belonging to a society.

Launay (2007) also considers that within the Colombian context it is more useful to regard to governance as a “differentiated” term. This means governance can be studied in its institutional or prescriptive form, referring to a government’s efficiency, or by the identification of the interests of the different stakeholders at different levels (local, regional, national), or even also, the series of norms such as transparency, non-corruption, respect for civil rights amongst others. Finally, as stated in the introduction of this sub-chapter, governance as a term is coined under the European and North American democratic models, in which there is a formal socio-political regulation (sovereignty) within the entire territory, which in Co- lombia is not always the case2. According to Grindle (2008:10): “the relationship between democracy and good governance is also complex in practice. Many Latin American countries have democratic institutions yet show high rates of corruption, low levels of transparency, and other dimensions of bad governance”. This stance, for example, according to Canto Sáenz (2011), may explain the apathy or mistrust of some sectors of the population to participate actively and effectively in the policy-making process, because of their disen- chantment with political practices:

2 Launay refers also to a “differentiated” state presence and a “differentiated” citizenship. The former means there are areas of Colombia which are not fully controlled by the state’s institutions but by other groups such as illegal armed groups. The latter refers to the fact that there are true and concrete scenarios in which citizens claim full participation in the decision-making process through citizens organizations for the promotion of political rights, citizen oversight groups against corruption, but at the same time, these coexist with other practices that characterize the relationship between governors and the governed (e.g. food for votes) or other ‘clientelist’ and corrupt practices which have been historic in the country. 18

The problem is certainly not citizen participation and civil society organizations in the whole process of policy-making, from the agenda setting to the implementation and evaluation; it has been argued thoroughly and convincingly about the necessity and the benefits of such participation. The problem is another one and very different: it is precisely the refusal towards the traditional political activity, to the political parties, elections and constituted powers, which in practice means to reject the main mode of political participation for greater parts of the population in our Latin American countries. (Canto Sáenz, 2011: 369, translated from Spanish)

Launay (2007), referring to the Colombian context considers that:

On the one hand, we have a global, institutional, and legal use of the concept which mani- fests through the deployment of a set of institutional tools, carbon-copied over European and American existing democratic models: the promotion of better transparency in public affairs, of an effective decentralization, and the strengthening of mechanisms for citizen participation […] on the other hand, some voices question the “universal character” of the western political tools and criticize the effective modes of transferring a good governance system to a country whose history and social dynamics are very different from those of the North (Launay, 2007:1, emphasis on original, translated from Spanish)

Hence, according to Launay (2007:8), to alleviate this conceptual and practical misalign- ment of the term in the Latin American context, following Meisel and Ould Aoudia (2007), it is more appropriate to distinguish between the institutional functions which refer to universal and atemporal values (like generating trust, preserving order and security in the society) and the institutional arrangements which denote the set of values behave according to a country’s history, culture, beliefs and levels of development.

The fact that a term [governance] belonging to the international political language is in- strumentalized in such a way by actors with such varied profiles and objectives, is what precisely constitutes its richness. This allows in fact, not abiding to a rigid and abstract concept, but with a live and a context-adapting one (Launay, 2006: 8).

Finally, Colombia’s current political context, characterized by a post-conflict scenario does not undermine the understanding and practical implementation of the term governance. However, this event does constitute an important limit to its understanding in the way it is underpinned in the European and North American context. Although the purpose if this thesis is not to evaluate whether governance exists or not in the Latin American context, it is crucial to delimit its use as a ‘differentiated’ term. This being said, instead of constituting a weakness or shortcoming, becomes in a possibility to start positioning the use and practice of the term in concrete situations within Latin American countries, and eventually ar- rive to some considerations for its future use.

2.4 Decision-Making in the Planning Domain

Planning is often done through a search of problems and its solutions. This search can be embodied by a focal actor as in the ‘phase model’, where decisions follow a linear way of defining a problem, searching, choosing and implementing a solution. Or it can also be the case that decision-making results from the agreements between different participants, problems and solutions and the connections between those streams (‘stream model’). The empirical chapter of this thesis aims to apply the ‘rounds model’ for decision-making (cf. Teisman, 2000). In the ‘rounds model’, policy outcomes are not the result of a single actor, but are a consequence of the interaction of various or many actors, each of them with its own perception of the problem, solution, resources and preferences, who are able to influence in the final result or outcome.

Here the researcher assumes that problems and solutions are not linked to a single actor (policy maker) and are therefore not fixed at the single moment at which the policy is adopted. Many actors are involved in decision making, and they will introduce their own perceptions of relevant problems, possible solutions and political judgment. To understand decision making, the researcher focuses on the variety of actors, objectives and solutions, their dynamics as well as the interactions between these elements (Teisman, 2000:943).

According to van Gils and Klijn (2007), following Koppenjan and Klijn (2004) and Scharpf (1997), actors with more resources, tangible or intangible, substitutable or not, have more power. Mutual adjustments in the form of collaboration, conflict or avoidance lead to policy results (Teisman, 2000:945). Hence, according to Teisman (2000) following Scharpf (1997), the rounds model can be seen as an interactive approach. Time is also important in the rounds model analysis, in that it marks the starting and the concluding events in a certain period. This period is called a ‘decision-making round’. Each round ends with ‘preferred’ or ‘crucial’ solution. These solutions are recognized because they usually change the number of actors, the nature of the interactions or the content of problem (van Gils and Klijn, 2007:143). Rounds are defined in retrospective and each new round could potentially change the games played inside the decision-making arenas, as new actors may appear and the rules of the game could be changed. An arena is the place (field) where actors come together and interact. According to van Gils and Klijn (2007) following Cohen et al. (1972) an arena is: “the place where a specific group of actors make choices on the basis of their perceptions of problems and solutions.” The results of a policy issue are determined to a large degree by the combination of strategies that are brought into the arenas and the interactions between those arenas. Actors, a choice situation and some more or less well- designed organizational arrangements create an arena (van Gils and Klijn, 2007:142). (cf. van Gils and Klijn, 2007; Teisman, 2000).

The selected case study has had a decision-making round called the PRM round. This round began in January 2012 when the Parque del Río Medellín was included as a flagship project

of the municipality of Medellín. A project bureau was established in November of 2012. This round is the focus of analysis for the present investigation. The rounds model is still useful first, because it gives the researcher the opportunity to follow decision-making processes in the fields of urban and infrastructure planning, given the long duration of such processes and the changes in the course those processes take (Teisman, 2000:939). Second, because the model (and researcher) assumes there are no central decisions by a single actor, but rather, decisions are taken by various actors. And third, because decisions should not be considered as result from an a priori order and hierarchy. Instead, they result from the different perceptions actors have, so it is not possible to guess the outcomes from the very beginning. Finally, the investigation was done in ‘real-time’; in other words, the researcher followed the decisions actors made on a daily basis. Therefore, this approach to the investigation allows using the rounds model because there is no prejudgment about hierarchy.

Figure 1: Rounds Model Figure 2: Decision-making rounds Parque del Río Medellín

Source: Teisman (2000:939) Source: Adaptation from Teisman (2000)

2.5 The Role of Participation in Planning

Issues related to citizen participation in planning have been incorporated into academic and societal studies as early as the 1960s (Arnstein, 1969; Graves, 1972). Graves (1972:198), argues that:

Citizen participation means different things to different people. Essentially it is a device to make government responsive to the needs of all people, particularly those people who are left out of the formal governmental decision-making process. Most public administrators and planners agree that citizens should be brought into the planning and decision-making process in one way or another. Many members on the boards and staffs of metropolitan regional councils, for example, try to involve citizens in planning and development issues by publishing attractive reports and pamphlets, scheduling public hearings, conducting surveys and polls, appointing advisory committees…

According to Brownill and Parker (2010), the complexities and dynamics of the present world imply the necessity to view problems and challenges “from the south”. This means

that by including public participation into the planning practice, decisions become more legitimate, as governments usually claim. Brody, Godschalk and Burby (2003), consider that public participation is regarded as a ‘key component’ in the planning practice and most of the times planners accept the fact that participation can produce (better) enduring plans. Citizen participation is beneficial because it produces trust, credibility and commitment regarding policy implementation. Hence, it helps to build social capital. Pickering and Minnery (2012:250), consider public participation as: “the process by which public concerns, needs and values are incorporated into governmental and corporate decision making. It is two-way communication and interaction, with the overall goal of better decisions that are supported by the public”. By promoting effective participation in urban development projects, participants have the chance to reveal their preferences and achieve projects that advance social justice (cf. Fung and Fagotto, 2006).

However, a gap between the rhetoric of participation and the real life experiences is an issue which should not be ignored.

This may be termed as a post-collaborative phase, which emphasizes the difficulties and challenges of participation from different perspectives and highlights the range of contexts and conditions that are producing and shaping participatory episodes (Brownill and Parker, 2010:276)

For example Brody, Godschalk and Burby (2003), argue that despite the growing emphasis on participation in the planning academic literature, participation is “vague, outdated and general” in the (American) laws that promote it. They are supporters of an active role of the urban planner to design strategies to involve citizens in plan-making. This strategy they argue, will result in the increasing public understanding and support for comprehensive planning. However, Pickering and Minnery (2012: 260) are also rather pessimistic, noting that: “full participation at the metropolitan scale is difficult, resource-intensive, and only partially effective […] perhaps at this scale of planning any form of participation that rise above mere consultation is not possible”.

Yet, it is important to highlight that public participation should be considered under its many shades. This means: “there is no canonical form of direct participation in modern democratic governance; modes of contemporary participation are, and should be, legion” (Fung, 2006:66). Following this line, Arnstein (1969: 216) for example considers that: “there is a critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the process.” Her seminal work “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” is useful to understand public participation in planning. Despite the fact Arnstein’s ladder is a ‘simplification’ (because it is a typology that doesn’t consider the many nuances between powerless and power holders) it does help to classify and give meaning to the different degrees of citizen participation in a multiplicity of arenas (Arnstein, 1969:218).

Figure 3: The “Eight Rungs” of the Ladder of Citizen Participation

Source: Arnstein (1969) Complementarily, Fung’s (2006) characterization of participation through his reconstruc- tion of the ‘democracy cube’ is also a useful tool in order to define and test stakeholder participation around three dimensions: who participates, the communication and decision making between participants, and the results of the discussions with policy outcomes or public action.

Some participatory processes are open to all who wish to engage, whereas others invite only elite stakeholders such as interest group representatives. The second dimension specifies how participants exchange information and make decisions. In many public meetings, participants simply receive information from officials who announce and explain policies. A much smaller set of venues are deliberative in the sense that citizens take positions, exchange reasons, and sometimes change their minds in the course of discussions. The third dimension describes the link between discussions and policy or public action.

In the democracy cube, any particular mechanism of participation can be analyzed (Fung, 2006:66). According to Fung (2006), these dimensions correspond with the institutional design and are crucial to understand the pros and cons of participatory forms.

Figure 4: Democracy Cube

Source: Fung (2006) In Fung’s (2006) opinion:

Decision making in a complex urban development project, for example, often results from interactions among multiple arenas, such as planning agencies, stakeholder negotiations, neighborhood councils, and public hearings. The space is also delineated to include arenas in which there is no public participation at all –for example-, arenas in which public officials in insulated agencies operate without direct public oversight or input.” (Fung, 2006:67)

In sum, decision-making in planning may or may not include citizen participation. Depend- ing on the dimensions of the arenas where participation takes place, the persons who are invited to make decisions, the communication process between participants, and the results of the communication process into the policy outcomes, participation can be analyzed. Alt- hough it is undeniable the importance of citizen participation in planning, and especially because governance is starting to replace traditional one-way decision-making, it is also important to acknowledge that full citizen participation is desirable, yet not always possible. It is the role of the public administrators, planners and politicians to strive for citizen participation in decision-making if better plans want to be achieved. Following Callahan (2007):

[…] while many people see the value of direct participation, it is still not widely adopted by public administrators who control the process and opportunities to participate. There is evidence that when done right, direct participation, and deliberative democracy produce positive outcomes. Public administrators recognize their roles are changing, they acknowledge that they are expected to be more open and facilitative, yet little training is being provided, on a systemic basis, to equip them with the skills they need to effectively perform in their new role. (Callahan, 2007:1190)

3. CONTEXT: PLANNING, GEOGRAPHY AND SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT IN COLOMBIA AND THE ABURRÁ VALLEY

The following chapter provides an overview of the context in which the case study takes place. First, an introduction of the geography of Colombia and its planning system will be presented. Then, the governance structure and planning in the Aburrá Valley will be described as well as the land use plans for the city of Medellín. Finally, a ‘case warm-up’ and the starting point for the empirical chapter will be also presented. In so doing, the reader will have the elements to understand the empirical findings on the PRM round of the project Parque del Río Medellín.

3.1 Republic of Colombia

Colombia (population 47 million approx.) is a unitary constitutional republic, located in the north-western region of South America. It is bordered by Panamá on the northwest; the Caribbean Sea to the north; Venezuela and Brazil to the east; Perú and Ecuador to the south; and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The country comprises of 32 departments, a capital district (Bogotá DC) and 1.115 municipalities (DANE 2010). Colombia is a presidential representative democracy, as established in the 1991 constitution.

The executive power is comprised by a national government whose head is the president, who is both head of state and government, a vice-president and a council of ministers; a departmental government, consisting of a governor and a department assembly; and a municipal government, consisting of a mayor and a municipal council. The president is elected by popular vote to serve for a period of four years and cannot be re-elected twice. Gover- nors, mayors and departmental and municipal councils are also elected by public vote every four years.

Colombia gained independence from Spain on July 20th, 1810. The country’s official language is Castilian Spanish but also around 68 ethnic languages and dialects are recognized. The country is pluri-ethnic; this means its people are a mix of indigenous, European and black populations who have inhabited and immigrated the country through the times. Once an agrarian economy, Colombia is now an emerging market part of the ‘CIVETS’ country list with a total GDP of 511.1 billion (US dollars). The country’s economy is mainly com- posed of agriculture, industrial products, financial services, natural resources and tourism.

3.2 Planning System in Colombia

In Colombia, national planning was a task of the central government since the 1930s, when the state was empowered to rationalize the production, distribution and consumption of the wealth produced within the country. Then in the late 1950s both the National Council for

Economic and Planning Policy and the Administrative Department of Planning and Tech- nical Services were created as entities in charge of the study and recommendation of the economic policy. In the late 1960s, the former institutions were modified in their structures and both the National Council of Economic and Social Policy (CONPES) and the National Department (agency) of Planning (DNP) were created. From this time on, the DNP acquired decision-making capacity to formulate plans and programs for the country with the collaboration of international technical missions (DNP, 2013).

From the 1950s to the late 1990s, Colombia’s planning was based on different pilot plans especially in the main cities, which found inspiration in the different urbanistic experiences of the United States and Europe. Planning was also backed by a few set of laws that regulated urbanism. For instance, by 1947, through Law 88/1947, the urbanistic legislations in the country required, for the first time, the necessity to design ‘regulating plans’. These plans applied for all municipalities with a fairly relevant budget. The ‘regulating plans’ showed how the future planning of the cities was to be achieved, not only on already developed edifications/infrastructures, but on future ones. In 1970, the first national development plan was enforced which implied the social, economic, political and environmental planning of the country for a period of four years.

However, it is important to understand that a fully operative and formal planning system in Colombia came into being after the 1991 constitution, an event that marked a decisive and fundamental turn for the country’s politico-administrative structure, fiscal decentralization and participative democracy. The new state model allowed the emergence of a planning system based on five components (Massiris, 2000):

1. Politico-administrative ordering; -Art. 288: Distribution of competencies between the nation and the territorial entities -Art. 297: Creation of new departments (provinces) -Art. 319: Creation of metropolitan areas -Art. 339: Creation of a National Development Plan 2. Municipal development ordering; 3. Environmental ordering; Art. 313: Land use regulations. 4. Harmonic regional development; 5. Socio- urban and rural development ordering.

After the constitution of 1991, a series of legislations were enacted to give land use planning, zoning, territorial ordering and metropolitan area planning new meanings and realities. It is worth mentioning a few important legislations in this sense:

 Law 128/1994 (derogates Law 1625/2013): created metropolitan land use planning;  Law 152/1994: created development plans at the national, departmental and municipal tiers. The law also established as mandatory, that the different territorial entities

(localities, municipalities, districts, departments) create their own land use plans which are complementary to the national development plan. This law also introduced the role of territorial planning councils (CTP).  Law 388/1997: established the conceptual framework to formulate and execute long term (12 years) municipal and district land use plans (POT).

Colombia’s planning system is very new and still has a very long road to cover. Historic and economic dynamics can account for this situation: first, the processes of national planning appeared belatedly due to political instability and internal conflicts in the country; second, the scarcity of economic resources to positively impact and start projects that would benefit the nation became in a factor that hindered the development of the planning activity in the country (Rengifo, 2012: 9). However and according to Massiris (2000), Co- lombia is:

[…] In the search of new horizons, of design and instrumentalization of structural and territorial scenarios who will compose a new territorial order sketched by the Constitution of 1991 […] This new order has as central axes; the decentralization and territorial autonomy, participative democracy, the restructuration of territorial organization, a development that is sustainable and spatially harmonic, social development and respect for cultural diversity.

Table 2: Colombia’s Planning System

Tier/Responsible Planning Instrument Scope Law

National: President National Development Plan Four years Law 152/1994

Departmental (Pro- Departmental Development Four years Law 152/1994 vincial): Governor Plan

Metropolitan: Metro- Metropolitan Development 12> years Law 128/1994 politan Board Plans: Law 1625/2013

Municipal: Mayor Municipal Development Plan Four years Law 152/1994

Municipal: Mayor Land Use Plans (POT) 3 municipal Law 388/1997 administrations (12 years)

3.3 Geography and Planning in the Aburrá Valley

One who observes for the first time the Aburrá Valley from an airplane at a great altitude, or from one of the hills that frame it, will be most probably surprised of its amplitude; in the satellite images and even more in the terrain digital models (TDM) its anomalous shape is confirmed: it is a corridor that measures up to 7 kilometers wide and extends for 30 kilometers from south to north from Caldas to Bello, where it brusquely takes a northeast direction for another 30 kilometers until reaching to Barbosa. (Medellín: Environment, Urbanism, Society, 2010:32)

Figure 5: Relationship River-Plain-Slope in the AMVA

Source: Alcaldía de Medellín (2014)

The Área Metropolitana del Valle de Aburrá (AMVA) located in the department of An- tioquia in North-western Colombia, is the country’s second largest metropolitan area (population 3.3 million) after the capital, Bogotá. The Aburrá Valley altitude ranges from 1300 to 2800 meters above sea level (masl), and its yearly average temperature is 22°C. The Medel- lín River, also called Aburrá River, crosses the valley from south to north; the river’s source is located in the municipality of Caldas (in the south) and stretches to the north to the municipality of Barbosa, becoming there the Porce River. The AMVA covers approxi- mately 1164 km² (340 km² correspond to urban area and 812 km² to rural area) and comprises of 10 municipalities, 9 of them being officially adhered to the public entity with the same name. The Aburrá Valley has a total length of 60 kilometers.

The AMVA was the first metropolitan area in Colombia. It is an administrative entity in between the territorial entities of the municipal and provincial order. The AMVA was created in 1980 through Departmental Ordinance 34/1980, for the promotion, planning, and coordination of the joint development and the delivery of services of the municipalities part of it. The AMVAs functions are:

 To plan the territory under its jurisdiction;  The environmental authority in the urban areas of the municipalities that conform it;  The authority of metropolitan and massive transportation;  The executor of projects of metropolitan scope.

Medellín is located both in the center of the valley and the metropolitan area. The 10 municipalities part of the AMVA are located as follows; northeast of Medellín, Barbosa,

Girardota, Copacabana and Bello; southwards, Itagui, Sabaneta, La Estrella, Caldas and Envigado (the latter is not formally part of the AMVA). Geographically, the 10 municipalities are close to each other: “in physical, environmental, economic and social terms, which gives the area the sense of a whole entity, brought-up under the same influence, with similar territorial morphology, and crossed by the same structural axis, the river, with inter- twined but different development conditions” (Interview 6 Deltametropool Association IN- between Metropolitan Strategies Program, 2013).

Figure 6: The AMVA in the continental and national context

Source: Deltametropool (2013)

Figure 7: (Municipal) Administrative Division AMVA

Source: AMVA To achieve a coherent metropolitan planning system and structure, the AMVA has as a series of long term planning instruments that transcend several municipal administrations. The main planning instruments are:

 Metropolitan Plan 2008-2020: proposes a 12 year metropolitan planning achieved through the identification of benchmarks;  Metropolitan Mobility Master Plan: identifies the mobility criteria for the metro area until the year 2020;  BIO 2030 Director Plan: diagnoses and structures the growth of the metropolitan area structuring axes’ (river, plain/flatness, and slope) until the year 2030 through two structuring systems: environment, landscape and public space; transport and mobility.

Achieving a metropolitan status demographically and spatially, this tendency poses three serious challenges to the administration of the Aburrá Valley in its whole and its conse- quential to achieve governance in the metro area (cf. Alcaldía de Medellín, 2011: 28). One of the greatest weakness the AMVA faces is its lack of legitimacy, especially in the case of the municipality of Envigado, located in the south of the metro area. Despite being one of the first conurbated municipalities of the valley, it is not officially part of the AMVA. The second challenge is the relative financial weakness of the entity in comparison to the core

municipality’s (Medellín) finances. The AMVAs income is concentrated to serve its environmental functions, but is rather diminished for the accomplishment of its other ones (transportation, mobility, and urbanism). A third one is the disparity in incomes between the different municipalities; some of them being relatively wealthy (in the south) while others being financially poor (in the north). Hence, the situation is prone to create a more ‘po- larized’ and unequal metro area (Alcaldía de Medellín, 2011: 28).

The AMVAs public sector governance structure is complex because of the different actors from the different municipalities who are involved (different planning departments from the municipalities and other secretariats); however, the main public sector actors that account for urban planning of the municipality of Medellín are described in the following table.

Table 3: Public Sector Governance structure of the AMVA (Medellín)

Entity Function(s)

AMVA Administrative public entity in charge of metropolitan planning, mass transport and environmental authority

Medellín’s Planning Department Coordinate and guide the city’s planning in its social, cultural, (DAP) economic, environmental, political and territorial dimensions

Urban Development Corporation Urban (metropolitan) and real estate management, develop- (EDU) ment, execution and consultancy of urban plans, programs and projects in the municipal, departmental, national and international spheres

3.4 A Historic Account of Urban Development of the Aburrá Valley

A step back in time will help understand the spatial development of the AMVA. In the last 200 years, the AMVA transformed from a small town, to the capital city of the Department of Antioquia. Different historical, political, social and economic events shaped the urban growth of the city. For example, the construction of the railroad in 1874 and its completion in 1929, allowed the valley’s connection mainly to the Caribbean Coast and other important centers in the region. The electric tram introduced in the early 1920s, helped to streamline both the industrial and urban growth. The valley’s dependency on a vast water structure (Medellín River) for electric generation was a determinant factor for the establishment of industrial activities along the river, mainly textiles, steel, beverages, coffee and cement.

It is important to highlight that violence and forced displacement from the poor countryside, has also accounted for Medellín’s growth (spatially and population wise), particularly since the second half of the twentieth century. Thousands fleeing the countryside because of violence and lack of opportunities began to populate the slopes of the northern part of the valley. They flocked the city in search of economic opportunities, jobs, health and education (cf. Hermelin-Arbaux, Echeverri Restrepo & Giraldo Ramírez, 2010; González, 2007).

It is ironic how both the 1950s marked a turning point in the metropolitan area growth, however, a formal planning structure would only be found until well the end of the 1990s (cf. Ramírez Ríos, 2011). By the 1950s, the river was channeled and its wetlands dried. Part of the architectonic heritage was destroyed to make space for new edifications. During these times and due to the pressures of an extending city, the city of Medellín was on the eye of renowned architects and urbanists, like the German Juan Wolf (who designed a pilot plan for the river), Colombian Pedro Nel Gómez, the Catalan Josep Sert and the American Paul Lester Wiener. In 1950, Josep Sert and Paul Lester Wiener were hired by the Munici- pality to elaborate a pilot plan for the city, influenced by the visit of Le Corbusier to the country in 1947. The proposed plan introduced concepts like industrial zones, a civic center, roads hierarchy, lineal parks, and neighborhoods units in both residential areas and the metropolitan area (Schnitter, 2005).

From the late 1940s to 1970, Medellín’s population tripled from 358.189 inhabitants regis- tered in the 1951 census, to 1.151.762 in 1973. According to Schnitter (2005) following Coupé (1996), although the pilot plan of the 1950s served as an important planning instrument, the city could not evolve in tandem with the problems posed by the rapid increase in population. The city begins growing in a fragmented and discontinuous fashion, responding to formal and informal urban growth dynamics.

In the early 1970s, Medellín’s planning department issued the “Road Plan” based on a ‘sol- id’ investigation that proposed an arterial road system in the main urban core, the Medellín River. According to Schnitter (2005) following Botero (1996), the river corridor was to be increasingly profiled as the multimodal corridor and bridge system with clover links, fore- seeing as well connections with the rest of the metropolitan area. A massive transportation network along the river corridor was planned during this decade, which included regional and national roadways and the Metro system, approved in 1975 and completed in 1995.

By 1985, Medellín had become a “patchwork” city or mosaic, product of the expansion in the previous 15 years, facilitated in a good part, by the transformations in the road network along the river axis. A new category for spatial occupation (‘U’) appears, making reference to the surge of gated communities. Concurrently, the consolidation and transformation of previous urban categories also takes place, creating an urban fabric that: “starts filling-in and giving shape to the urban continuum” (Schnitter, 2005, emphasis on original). The consolidation of the road network (highway along the river, arterial roads, rings, clover) to the service of the private vehicle became in the city’s structuring criteria:

The implementation of these projects produced one of the most visible transformations in the urban space and became connected to the idea of progress that placed in the physical, but above all, in the big roads, a clear sign of the approximation towards an image of a modern city. Schnitter (2005, emphasis on original) following Naranjo (1997:76)

From 1985 to 1996, the AMVAs population grew from 2.027.267 million inhabitants to more than 2.5 million. The metropolitan area began to experience the phenomena of conurbation as the municipalities of Envigado and Sabaneta in the south, and Bello and Copaca- bana in the north, became more integrated to Medellín, the core municipality, in physical, economic and social aspects. This gives the AMVA a sense of single region, a single city. Since the late 1990s to the 2010s, the AMVA has shown an increasing tendency of growth both spatially and demographically. Demographic trends show that by the year 2030, the region will have to make space for an additional 844.883 inhabitants. This poses conse- quences for the availability of housing, employment and other demands (cf. Alcaldía de Medellín, 2011). In the present, the AMVA is characterized by its strong economic position in Antioquia and Colombia, and as a region focused on the expansion of opportunities for foreign investments and the consolidation of the technology and services industry. None- theless, the region still faces enormous challenges in terms of poverty and inequality reduction, education, mobility and public space and urban security (cf. Medellín, Medio Ambi- ente, Urbanismo, Sociedad, 2010).

Figure 8: AMVA Growth and Expansion Through Time

Source: Alcaldía de Medellín (2011: 62) [own adaptation]

As a concluding note, it is worth mentioning the AMVA spatial development has been product of different actors like urban constructors and real estate speculators on the one hand, and the informality of housing and development on the margin of legality. Through last couple of decades, this has yielded in interventions based on land availability outside the scopes of urban planning. Hence, and according to Schnitter (2005), the participation of the different urban actors (agents) and the planning policies are still pending to intertwine in a city that has built itself upon a variety of urbanization processes.

3.5 The Three Land Use Plans in Medellín: Planning for the Future or the Future Demanding for Planning?

As explained in section the previous section, Colombia has a very recent planning system. It was not until well into the last years of the 1990s of the 20th century, that Medellín and its surrounding metro municipalities prepared their first land use plans (“planes de or-

denamiento territorial”- POT-) in accordance to the requirements of the national government decreed by Law 388/1997.

In Medellín, as in all Colombian municipalities with a population above 100.000 inhabitants, it is a requirement to have a land use plan (POT). A POT is a long-term technical and normative planning instrument which serves two purposes. One, it designs the set of actions and administrative and planning policies that guide the development of the municipalities for a period of 12 years. Second, it regulates the uses, occupations and transformations of urban and rural space. The POT is concretized through the execution of physical urban and rural works (infrastructures), which are programed for either short (4 years), medium (8 years) or long-term (12 or more years).

The following table summarizes the main characteristics of the city model proposed in the previous land use plans of Medellín. The description is useful to understand how land is understood and transformed in the city.

Table 4: City Model Proposed in the Land Use Plan (POT)

POT 1999 POT 2006 (Municipal Agreement 62/1999) (Municipal Agreement 46/2006)

- Enhanced rural area Reviews and adjusts the 1999 Better connectivity to the land use plan in the following metropolitan area aspects: Strengthening of the agricul- - A city integrated to its ture and touristic activity ‘most important envi- - “Green Belts” ronmental axis’: A riv- Protection of the slopes from er corridor in which the upper expansion on both strategic activities of the eastern and western sides of city are located the valley - A city oriented to com- - Compact-city model (in- petitiveness which is at- growth) tractive to investors, Emphasis on centric (stagnat- residents and visitors ed, underused) areas close to - A city which ‘privileges the river the pedestrian over the - A river spatially and envi- car’ in a friendly and ronmentally linked to the quality public space city’s development - Quality public space Incorporates the city’s natural elements (main hills and ravines) - A recovered downtown Strategic projects and interventions - Massive transportation system (Metro and comple-

mentary links and nodes) - A metropolitan corridor of services along the river High urbanistic quality, in harmony and integration with residential and productive uses - Land use mixes (Commercial and residential)

Since March 2013, the forthcoming land use plan (POT) for the Municipality of Medellín is being formulated with the collaboration of the planning department (DAP) and organized citizens who are represented through the territorial planning council (CTP). The 2014 land use plan has a scope of 12 years and will structure land use in the city until the year 2027. This thesis does not evaluate the impacts the coming land use plan will have for the city. However, the current (compact-city) city model which was proposed in previous land use plans, is far from being accomplished. The overflowing construction of residential units along the slopes of the valley in the last decade has been an event that has placed decisive attention to the urbanistic, landscape and architectonic development of the city around the Medellín River, which the coming land use plan will place a considerable attention.

3.6 Case Warm up: Current Conditions of the Medellín River

The 10 municipalities of the AMVA have settled in a linear way along the Medellín River. Geographically, economically and socially, the river has become the main axis of the urban articulation process in the metropolis (Alcaldía de Medellín, 2011:38). Despite the strategic location of the river as natural water ‘spine’ in the Aburrá Valley, over the last 60 years it has been transformed into a scenario to structure fundamentally metropolitan mobility and accessibility and industry (metal, paper, coffee processing, cement and concrete) (cf. Gon- zález, 2007:76). Its potential as a public and environmental axis in the center of the metropolis has been left unexploited (Alcaldía de Medellín, 2011:38). Over time, urban development has had negative impacts on the Medellín River, such as the canalization and ‘recti- fication’ of its riverbed, hence its confinement into walls of concrete. The motorways (on both eastern and western side) and metro rails (on its eastern side) have become a barrier that restricts the metro area residents to narrow remnant areas of public space.

Table 5: Current Conditions of the Medellín River

Activity Consequence

Transport infrastructure: -High air contamination and pollution -Motorways (passenger and commercial ve- -Increased traffic flows and congestion at peak hours hicles) for national, regional and local con- -Increased noise nectivity; Metro rails -Conflicts between mobility and ‘city -Non-motorized informal utilization (bicy- events’ in zones surrounding the river (e.g. cle) Christmas Lights, Feria de las Flores (Flow- er Festival -Underuse/misuse of centric, flat soil -Low index of green areas/person Industry: metal, chocolates, tobacco, liquors, brew- -Water contamination: chemical and residue dump- eries, soda drinks, paper, concrete and cement, cof- ing fee processing, leather tanneries -Relocation, reconversion of industries, mixed use zones in process of abandonment and/or spoilage Official infrastructure (municipal and provincial -Relocation of municipal and provincial from the buildings) city center (1980s)

Housing developments New land occupation models different from the slope Cultural services: museum of modern art occupation model (begins in 2006)

High-end health services: physicians centers

Banking Services

Homelessness -Precariousness of homeless population, improvised huts along the river, insecurity, drug dispensing MAIN CONCERN(s): lack of a coherent vision for the transformation of the river sector. The river as an ‘excluding fringe’ within the main heart of the metro area. Loss of citizen relationship with the river. Disar- ticulation of the river with the rest of the metropolis. Source: Own recreation (adaptation from different sources)

Figure 9: Medellin River (circa 1870)

Figure 10: Medellin River (1890)

Figure 11: Medellin River canalization works begin (1956-1958)

Figure 12: River Canalized and Road Network (1970) ‘La 33’ Bridge

3 Figure 13: Medellin River fully canalized in an expanding city (1974)

3 Photo credits: Fotos Antiguas de Medellín. https://www.facebook.com/FotosAntiguasDeMedellin; SCA- Colombian Society of Architects- http://www.sociedadcolombianadearquitectos.org/site/ Biblioteca Pública Piloto de Medellín para América Latina- Medellín’s Pilot Public Library for Latin America- http://www.bibliotecapiloto.gov.co/ 39

Figure 14: Regional Motorway along the River (present-day)

Source: Skyscraper City

3.7 BIO 2030 Plan

BIO 2030 is a strategic metropolitan development plan which structures the AMVA planning until the year 2030. The plan focuses on building proposals blending the metropolitan with project scales. Hence, it combines general and local planning views.

The crafting of such document did not occur in a vacuum. It was the ongoing process which involved the participation of Medellín as the core municipality within the metropolitan area, the AMVA as the entity in charge of metropolitan planning and land use, and the metro area municipalities, their institutions, citizens and public officers, aiming to set a standard so that the future land use plans of the metropolitan municipalities have common grounds and goals. This context marked the starting point to formulate BIO 2030 (Alcaldía de Me- dellín, 2011:10).

BIO 2030 was stewarded by the AMVA and the Municipality of Medellín. Both public institutions summoned Eafit University’s Center for Urban and Environmental Studies (Ur- bam), to assume the technical and investigative process of the drafting of the plan. Urbam proposed the Municipality and the AMVA to setup a specialized taskforce to define the most important aspects to be included in the plan. International consultancy was also sought with the participation of Atélier Parisien d’Urbanisme (Apur) and the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (BarcelonaTech).

The whole BIO 2030 process was structured and built with the participation of private, public and academic interest groups, given that there is a non-existing metropolitan citizenship identity, neither the definition nor configuration of organized groups, nor spaces for participation at this scale (Alcaldía de Medellín, 2011:18). In the different stages of the process,

BIO 2030 developed a collective consensus building strategy which aimed to reach agreements on: Where are we now? Where should we go? What should we do [to achieve that]? (Alcaldía de Medellín, 2011:18).

Table 6: Participating Actors in BIO 2030

Public Private Academia

Metropolitan Board Strategic Table for plans of Aburrá North and Metropolitan Council of Plan- South ning Environmental Tables Inter-institutional Taskforce Five architecture Offices of: Planning, Environ- Real Estate and Construc- faculties for the ment, Transport and Transit tion Sectorial Inter-union consultation of Committee ideas for area Corantioquia interventions Proantioquia EPM Entrepreneurs Medellín Metro Expert taskforce Metroplús Mass media Source: Alcaldía de Medellín (2011:18, translated from Spanish)

The BIO 2030 plan was achieved and completed on December 1st 2011. It is important to mention that although BIO 2030 did not identify Parque del Río Medellín as a concrete project, what the plan did, was to diagnose the current riverside situation of the metropolitan area, proposing strategic alternatives of intervention ( in terms of urban, engineering, landscape, architecture) along the riverside. Hence, BIO 2030 is considered as the platform or the starting point for the beginning of the PRM round.

Table 7: BIO 2030 Proposal for Land Occupation in the AMVA

How should the territo- How should growth Main goal ry be occupied dynamics be focused

Compact and polycen- Metropolitan structur- River and slopes, sce- tric ing systems for territo- narios for the sustaina- metropolis: rial integration: bility of Aburrá Valley:

-Central conurbation: to -Environment, landscape -The river as the major contain conurbation and public space: due to metropolitan center for between the [river] coves complex geography of activities and habitat and optimization of land the metropolitan city should be strengthened use. Hence, densification demands for the imple- as environmental axis of the transport network mentation of artificial and public space, with- and foster for an equita- and natural elements out ignoring its structur- ble and balanced distri- ing role of metropolitan

bution of urban activities -Mobility and transporta- mobility and services tion: aims to increase the -Contain the growth and -Non-conurbated nuclei: metropolis' connectivity sprawl of housing (for- prevent continuous and with the rest of the re- mal and informal) over disperse urbanization gion, the country and the the slopes, by regulating outside the [river] coves world; works to guaran- and orienting occupation towards north and south tee better conditions of processes from a strategy valleys. Hence, consoli- internal accessibility, of urban fringe control date ecological corridors consolidation of infra- that define diverse structure networks and rhythms of occupation the fostering of a mobili- and environmental ty model which is equi- preservation table and sustainable

Source: Alcaldía de Medellín (2011:65, adapted and translated from Spanish)

Table 8: BIO 2030 Where Should We Go? - Strategic Geographic Scenarios: The River as Axis of Transformations and Heart of the Metropolis

Activity Outcome

The river simultaneously considered as an element of In 2030, the river should be the territory that gathers local and metropolitan identity, ecosystem, mobility a great diversity of functions and offers the best axis and potentiality for public space standards for urban quality within the valley. In tandem, and outside the central conurbation, in the northern and southern valleys, the river shall become a natural green space to develop activities around tourism and agro-industry Source: Alcaldía de Medellín (2011)

Table 9: BIO 2030 What should we do? - Strategic Objectives

Activity Outcome

Limit the occupation of riversides zones exposed Risk management to flooding Promote in new riverside developments the Compactness, reduction in land use, energy, natural achievement of sustainability: compact model, com- resources plexity, efficiency and social cohesion Re-naturalize river shores and risk-reduction in Relocation/enforcement of clean production of in- mitigated areas dustries located near to the river Mixed used (housing and commerce) to respond to Shifts in densification (housing) from the slopes to the AMVAs population changes centric riverside areas Burying motorways in strategic portions, strength- Effectiveness of mobility infrastructure to bind the ening of transversal connections, river border ad- metropolitan territory and integrate the river to urban justment for pedestrian and bicycle use life Water decontamination Maximize the river as natural system Source: Alcaldía de Medellín (2011)

4. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS: CASE STUDY PARQUE DEL RÍO MEDELLÍN AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

4.1 Introduction

The following chapter aims to describe in detail the case study in light of Teisman’s round model for decision-making (cf. Teisman, 2000; van Gils and Klijn, 2007). The chapter also aims to present and to link the empirical findings achieved through elite semi-structured interviews, to the decision-making process between public sector and civil society actors. The research sub-questions will be answered in this chapter.

The structure of the chapter is as follows: a description of the case study Parque del Río Medellín will be provided in §4.2; then the PRM decision-making round will be described §4.3. The actors involved in this round, their positions in the field and the most important decisions will be described in §4.4; §4.5 will present the actor’s perceptions on problems and goals. Finally, the arenas (expert and citizen) of the PRM decision-making round will be developed in §4.6.

4.2 What is Parque del Río Medellín?

Parque del Río Medellín is an urban transformation project with a strategic scope. This public initiative takes as inspiration other international riverside restoration experiences. These experiences replicate in different cities worldwide, like the “Pasig River” (Manila, Philippines), “Cheongyecheong River Stream” (Seoul, South Korea), “Madrid Manzanares Rio 30 M30” (Madrid, Spain), “Les Berges” (Paris, France), “Millennium Park” (Chicago, IL), and “Via Parque Rimac” (Lima, Perú).

The project’s main objective is to transform the Medellín River in the environmental and public space axis of the region and the city. The project aims to optimize its current role of principal axis of the metropolitan (regional and national) mobility, and to potentiate its current structuring and integrative element of the different territorial systems (landscape and public space, mobility and transportation).

According to the municipality of Medellín (Alcaldía de Medellín, 2013), the project’s main aspects include:

 1.6 billion square meters of new public space;  Underground roads in specific portions;  Better air quality and reduction of noise levels;  Sustainable mobility with new spaces for non-motorized mobility which corre- sponds to 34 kilometers of bicycle and pedestrian paths according to the metropolitan master plan of mobility;

 A new land occupation model which serves housing and commercial purposes.

Hence, the project aims to change the river into the metropolis’ environmental and public space axis. Without losing its current use of arranger of mobility for the city and the region, the river scenario becomes in the structuring and integrating element of the different territorial systems. The project should find however a delicate balance between multiple demands, apparently contradictory. This means the current motorway running through both sides of the river should not only be kept, but enhanced. On the other hand, the restoration of the environmental milieu should also be compatible with the river’s natural characteristics.

The expected impact of the project is that:

It will allow to guarantee the betterment of mobility along the river’s road network and generate a hub of development through new land use occupation that would develop according to the strategic vocations of the metropolis, conforming or consolidating habitat- centers and multiple significant activities with determined emphasis’, who theoretically could benefit all the city’s inhabitants and possibly a great part of the metropolis, because in principle, it would have the best of the city’s infrastructure guaranteeing connectivity and quality of public space (Alcaldía de Medellín, 2012a:381, translated from Spanish).

On October 30th 2013, the final design of the project has been disclosed to the public. The winning proposal (team WJ5) was awarded to “Latitud, Taller de Arquitectura” (“Latitud, Architecture Atelier”) comprised by a group of young architects in head of Sebastián Monsalve and Juan David Hoyos. The project was titled “Parque Botánico Río Medellín” (Botanic Park Río Medellín).

According to the Colombian Association of Architects:

The project addresses the environmental, public space, road network and connectivity prob- lematic from the everyday experience of the citizen of Medellín. In order to reach the proposed change of paradigm, it [the project], sets clear premises to redefine and reset the environmental culture for Medellín and its river, declaring not wanting to intervene directly the river per se. The project proposes the river as an environmental axis that will integrate green gaps to the ecological network through identified nodes and links in order to reach the proposed ecological transformation […] the interaction with the borders to the project’s area of intervention is proposed from the recycling and rehabilitation of existing infrastructures in order to achieve the compact-city model […] mobility is proposed through com- plementation with alternative systems of minimum impact (bicycle paths, pedestrians) and the integration to the proposed public spaces of the existing and forthcoming centers of transference (SCA, 2013, translated from Spanish)

The winning proposal received a prize of 2051 million Colombian pesos4 for the definitive urban, architectural and landscape designs. An additional 7 months will be needed to refine the details of the first segment of the project, which will commence construction works during the first semester of 2014 and should conclude in December 2015 when the current municipal administration.

Figure 15: Pedestrian Bridge Over River

Source: EDU (2013a)

4 1996 COP = 1 USD (January 24th exchange rate) 45

Figure 16: Bird’s-Eye View Over Pilot Project

Source: EDU (2013a)

The project’s first section will be a pilot project with a total longitude of 2.5 kilometers, becoming a ‘trigger section’. This means it will be the first visible example on what the project will become (R1P) and what the rest of the metropolitan area municipalities touching the river should take as ‘reference point’ or visible example (R8P). According to Sebas-

tián Monsalve, head of the project: “we have a climate and natural milieu of a great force to be enjoyed […] the every-day citizen will have the option to return to the river, as a new great democratic space for people’s gathering will be constructed, enjoy the nature and the river’s hydric system” (El Colombiano, 2013, November 3rd). The first section also aims to bury part of the existing road network either by underground roads or ‘false tunnels’, which will allow pedestrian access to the new spaces. According to the project’s head, the purpose of this is that the car should make a ‘sacrifice’.

“Parque del Rio Medellin” is a project that transcends the current municipal administration. A total budget of 2 billion Colombian pesos, will account for the total (long term) cost of the project. In the current municipal administration, the project has a total budget of 275 thousand million Colombian pesos which comprises of the construction of the first section of the project between calle 30 and avenida San Juan (section 3 of the map).

Figure 17: Sections Parque del Río Medellín

Source: Alcaldía de Medellín (2013, translated from Spanish)

4.3 PRM Parque del Río Medellín Round (2012-2013)

The Parque del Río Medellín (PRM) round began in January 1st 2012, with the changes in municipal and departmental administrations (both mayor and governor). Parque del Río Medellín was officially included in the Municipal Development Plan 2012-2015 ‘Medellín, a home for life’ (‘Medellín, un hogar para la vida’), which was endorsed by Municipal

Agreement 7/2012. Being approved by Municipal Agreement, meant that the mayor’s government program and the budget to execute it were approved both by the city council and by the citizen organizations that have a seat in the territorial planning council (hereafter CTP). The project Parque del Río Medellín was included as a ‘flagship project’ of the municipal development plan. The Municipal Development Plan was designed and drafted by the municipal cabinet and its Secretariats (education, health, social welfare, culture, economic development, mobility, environment, security, women’s, the planning department, and other decentralized entities) as well the participation of lay and organized citizens through the CTP.

Between January and February 2012, the municipality of Medellín held a total of 113 preparatory meetings for citizen participation and pedagogy for upcoming forums that would be summoned by the territorial planning council CTP. A total of 2.430 people attended the preparatory meetings during that period. Then during the month of March, a total of 7.386 people attended the CTP forums. Throughout the period special emphasis was put on the role of mass media and social networking, printed formats for citizen proposals, TV programs and other instruments to involve citizen participation in the crafting of the plan. Then, in the month of April, the plan was adjusted by the Municipality taking as reference the participation process of the previous months. In May, the plan was finally presented to the Municipal Council for its debate and final approval (Alcaldía de Medellín, 2012b). The Municipal Council approved a budget of 12 billion Colombian pesos for a timeframe of four years to execute the Municipal Development Plan (El Mundo, 2012, May 30th).

The approval of the Municipal Development Plan marked the beginning of PRM round and the final choosing of the project Parque del Río Medellín marked its end. It is also important to note that the Municipal Development Plan regards the project as (part of) the recommendations contained in BIO 2030 for the metro area (cf. Alcaldía de Medellín, 2012a). Hence, both the BIO 2030 plan and PRM decision-making round have close connections, because of their relation to the problems and solutions proposed.

In Medellín (as in the majority of Colombian municipalities), the Municipal Development Plan is the ‘roadmap’ for every municipal administration in which different programs are to be developed for the four-year period. The programs are (periodically) evaluated by the Medellín’s planning department (hereafter DAP), Medellín’s Citizen Oversight Body (VCPD), and other organizations like “Medellín Cómo Vamos” (MCV), on the basis of indicator (benchmarks) achievements, which may have baseline goals from previous administrations, or may be new ones. The purpose to measure the effectiveness of municipal programs through product indicators is embedded into the ‘results-based-budgeting’ (RBB) methodology for planning, widely used in Medellín in the past three municipal administrations. The RBB methodology allows the different Secretariats of the municipal cabinet, including the DAP, to achieve a set of goals through the four year period. Hence, the Secre-

tariats total budget depends generally on the amount and extent of responsibilities delegated through the indicators.

On November 2012, the DAP set up a project bureau for Parque del Río Medellín. The Ur- ban Development Corporation (EDU) through a project bureau was summoned to assume the administration of the project. The project bureau was established for the project’s ‘technical, financial, and legal’ structuring. Creating a project bureau meant appointing a project bureau manager, a technical manager and an urbanism manager. A taskforce of more than 50 civil servants specialized in the fields of engineering, architecture, urbanism, planning, sociology and anthropology where also involved in the bureau’s functioning. The project bureau received a total budget of 25510 million pesos.

In early 2013, it was decided by DAP and the EDU through the project bureau, that the best way to commence the project’s structuring was holding an international two-round tender contest for architecture, landscape and urbanistic designs. The contest opened through a worldwide convocation on early June 2013. The Colombian society of architects (SCA) summoned the international contest. A total of 13 countries and 57 proposals were received (40 from Colombia and 17 foreign). A qualified jury of 7 experts, both national and international, evaluated the proposals according to four evaluating criteria. Then, on August 9th, the jury gathered again to choose four of the 57 proposals, and present to the citizens the winning proposal on October 30th 2013. A more detailed description of this process will be given in § 4.6: expert arena.

4.4 Actors and Decisions of the PRM round: Degree of Influence, Resources and Interests

The following section aims to answer the questions: Who were the main actors involved in the decision-making process and what were their main interests around the policy implementation?

Eight actors were accountable during the PRM round. Each of them had its own degree of influence, interests and resources to shape the decision-making process. Not all actors took formal decisions, but this does not mean they did not have an important and visible stance on the way the project was being framed. In other words, there were other scenarios taking place besides the ‘formal’ decision-making, where the civil society actors had their own perceptions and discussions towards the project.

From the public sector, the main actors were:

 Medellín’s Planning Department [agency] (DAP)  Project Bureau Parque del Río Medellín (EDU) o Social coordinator  Metropolitan Area authority (AMVA)

The DAP role in the PRM round was to audit, and give the main guidelines to the project bureau for the Parque del Río Medellín implementation. Both the DAP and the project bureau are part of the municipal cabinet. On the other hand, the AMVA as a public sector actor, was in charge of the environmental, land use and mobility impacts of the project; roles which are specific to the metropolitan authority in Medellín. Although the AMVA did not make any formal decision as a public sector actor in the PRM round, this institution has a decisive role when the project starts getting built (R1P, R8P), since its main strength is the planning of the metropolitan area in a long-term scope, much different from the short- term (4 year) planning scope of the municipal administrations (R8P).

At the municipal level, the decision-making process was perceived as hierarchal and inefficient (R1P) and ‘pyramidal’ (R4P). However, the strong ties of the project bureau manager with the mayor of Medellín, facilitated making strategic decisions, easing the administrative twirls of the public sector, as exemplified in the following quotation:

Between the DAP and the EDU, there is a supervisor, but not only one supervisor, but a group of supervisors, for technical effects and so on and so forth…[short pause] Between the EDU and ourselves there is a supervisor, and ourselves. We make decisions or analysis, and to make a decision it has to go all the way through that [supervisors] upwards. This is the most inefficient thing in the world. It is useless! [...] There is a lot of informality. Despite there is a lot of formality on what’s written, entrepreneurially there is a lot of informality. (R1P)

In addition to all these public sector actors, four civil society actors were also accountable in the decision-making process. The actors from the civil society were:

 “La Ciudad Verde” (“The Green City” LCV)  Citizen Oversight Body for the Development Plan (VCPD)  “Medellín Cómo Vamos” (“Medellín How Are We Doing” MCV)  Medellín’s territorial planning council (CTP)

“La Ciudad Verde” which is national citizen platform for the promotion of sustainability of regions and cities was invited in several occasions by the project bureau to its ‘roundtables’, ‘workshops’ and ‘socializations’. LCV main role was to provide inputs to the project, since LCV has an ‘interesting national visibility’ in the promotion of more sustainable cities (R2C). The CTP was also invited to the project bureau’s ‘roundtables’ and project ‘socializations’. The CTP is an advisory and permanent body appointed by Medellín’s mayor and it is the main space for citizen participation in planning issues in the municipal context. This body is represented through a President and 21 representatives from different citizen organizations, guilds and unions (e.g. NGOs, construction, industry, commerce, universities, environmental groups, indigenous and afro-Colombian people associations, women’s rights) who have voice and vote in this citizen body. However, the CTP role in

the municipal decision-making in the PRM round was actually limited, since its position is not legally ‘binding’.

Two additional actors played a ‘peripheral’ or ‘satellite’ role in the PRM round. This means they did not take part of any formal decision. However, more often than not, these are actors who have quite important convening power in the city, credibility and visibility. These actors were the Citizen Oversight Body for the Development Plan (VCPD) and the inter- institutional organization “Medellín Cómo Vamos” “(Medellín How Are We Doing” MCV). The VCPD monitors the overall performance of the Municipal Development Plan, follows its process of implementation, and presents publicly the results and recommendations for its correct accomplishment. The organizations part of the VCPD belong to different backgrounds (labor unions, women’s, environmental, human and cultural rights, among others). On the other hand, MCV is a private inter-institutional alliance (program) that evaluates and monitors quality of life in Medellín. The program has the participation of different private entities like foundations, newspapers, universities, Medellín’s chamber of commerce amongst others. MCV main goals are: promoting an accountable government; a participative, informed and responsible citizens; and looks for alliances to foster quality of life in Medellín. Although the VCPD and the MCV did not make part of any formal decision, they did have a ‘say’ about Parque del Río Medellín, as will be revealed.

The empirical findings showed it is clear the municipal government through the DAP and the project bureau were the actors who made final decisions, or as a civil society actor framed it, it is the municipality who has the “handle of the pan” (R5C). The municipality, embodied through the DAP, the project bureau manager and the EDU were the actors both, with the most (tangible) resources, and decision-making capacity. However, it was also discovered civil society actors do have certain degree to shape or influence the decision- making processes, as they perceived the municipality has heard and has been concerned with their proposals, repairs and objections based on previous experiences and planning of projects. Nonetheless, their ability to shape decision-making processes in the city is limited because of the fact that their comments are not legally binding, or mandatory (R3C, R5C, R6C). All of the interviewed civil society actors recognized however, that beyond physical (monetary) resources to shape decision-making process, they did have a certain degree of convening power, credibility, visibility, knowledge, recognition, technical and human capacities to influence in one degree or another decision-making of strategic projects (R2C, R3C, R5C, R6C). Their intangible resources are hence one of their most important assets to influence decision-making.

Another important feature of the degree of influence that civil society actors manifested is that although they know (and hope) from previous experiences that their proposals are taken into consideration by the municipality, they do not know up to what point their ideas will be reflected in the most important decisions. They were confident their ideas and opin-

ions are reflected in the policy-making, but they did not have a way to prove that such opinions were effectively incorporated.

The following quotes from civil society actors serve to illustrate the above mentioned statements:

Our position is very weak, handing out concepts that are not mandatory, or how do they say? Binding? So it is sometimes a very big exercise that serves more to make the civil society think, than to make decisions… we must come to, at least, if it is not binding, at least that they are fearful to go against [us]… they [DAP] are treating us like princes, and they are doing this in great measure because they know [we] will have to opine, and they cannot "skip" [our] concept, right? But they do not do it grudgingly, because the planning director is a person who believes in participation, who supports participation, who has spent time on that, accompanying. (R6C)

We are invited as part of the civil society in themes related to advisory… we have a representative in the CTP, so we will have some kind of decision level when the project is approved. But let’s say, the biggest importance… the biggest relevance that we have towards the project from a non-official standpoint is in the production of discussions around the project, right? We are aiming to get civil society involved of telling them things, so everyone has something to say, right? […] So we look to involve the citizens. The city is not only academics… the city is the people who have their productive ways. So we, the more we do for the divulgation of the project, the more it can get enriched. (R2C)

We do citizen control by creating public opinion. We say to the community: "watch out! the mayor is mistaken in this…watch out! If this city continues like this, this will happen". So the importance we have is that we have the operative capacity and logistic to do control and follow-up to what is stipulated in the development plan. (R3C)

I hope, at least, it has made them reflect and they know the critique is there. That is a winning point. Because another thing is that they ignore it. The mayor made it explicit: "I know there are critiques…" And he enumerated them. So he knows them, recognizes them, makes them explicit and I think that starts to permeate. (R5C)

Finally, all of the public sector actors and civil society main interests around the project is that “it gets done” (R2C). Other civil society actors expressed their main interest is related to issues of the improvement of life quality in the city, the adequate management of public resources, transparency of the administration and the achievement of the goals proposed in the municipal development plan. In general, they regarded the project as an important step to solve Medellín’s public space deficit and contribute to a different model of space occupation, but they do not have express interests the project gets done in the exact way the administration is framing it.

4.5 The Actor’s Perceptions on Problems and Goals: Is There a Consensus?

The following section aims to answer the question: What were the problems and goals the project aims to achieve?

As could be analyzed, the empirical findings showed that the actors involved in PRM round agreed that Parque del Río Medellín aims to solve a public space problem in the metropolitan area, which places Medellín as one of the worst performing cities in Latin America (and elsewhere) in terms of ‘effective’ (real) public space use; this is, urban public space which citizens can enjoy (R2C, R3C, R5C). The municipality of Medellín generally counts public space as the green space in the vehicular round-points, which is certainly not a space where a “citizen can go and have a coffee”, or vast forests outside the city’s jurisdiction (R5C). This places Medellín as a city with 3.9m² of green public space/inhabitant, when the standard should be 10m²/inhabitant according to the World Bank and World Health Organization (R3C, R5C).

They considered the project´s goal is to generate quality public space but at the same time taking advantage of one of the best areas in the city [along the river] which has excellent access to goods and services. These goals could be potentially reached through the construction of new housing, commerce, and alternative mobility solutions which this is last, is currently used by a regional motorway, the metro rails and a few big heavy industries (R1P, R6C, R5C, R3C). It could be seen that the actor’s opinion on the problem and its solutions matched the policy documents and official information about the project.

As for the problems the project aims to solve, it was recurrent in their answers the lack of public space in the city and the condition that through time, the relationship city-river or citizens-river has been lost. As one public sector actor puts it: “...that all of us are conscious that we live in a city with a river, and that river and the city is a unit, not two things” is a goal the project aims to achieve. As framed by one civil society actor:

Well, there is a very particular thing in Medellín and it’s that although Medellín is a valley, when people talk about Medellín, they talk about its mountains and, and… the mountains are in the popular imagery but unlike other valleys in the world, the only thing that is not in the popular imagery is the river. The river crosses the center of the city, but no one sees it. (R2C)

Blending a perceived problem to a potential solution, a civil society actor considered:

[The project aims at] strengthening the relationship city-environment, citizen-river. I don’t know if it may sound cliché, but I think that it is the opportunity to give back to city the possibility to approach to its river, to listen its river, to make decisions over its river, to look the condition of the river, and from this standpoint, that they [citizens] can demand the treatment and care for the river […] So it [the project] also aims to giving back to the city a space that was stolen in a moment where cities profiled themselves in other ways of organization, where the roads were built along the river, where a door was closed. (R4P)

About the problems, one public sector actor expressed:

The main problem that will be solved is the restructuration of the planning of urbanism of the city, so that it [the city] becomes friendlier with the people and they [the people] can enjoy of a park, that crosses the whole city, and to enjoy as well of the river. The city has given its back to the river, and with this project it is wanted that the city returns to the river through the park that will accompany them in its both shores. (R1P)

However, other goals different from the generation of quality public space cannot be ignored. For example, the opportunities to generate housing, commerce and different land uses for the territories associated to the river are also seen as part of the solution. Hence, it was seen the project combined both elements of sustainability through generation of public space, but at the same time the structuring of a new housing and commerce potential along the river milieu, as both a public sector and civil society actors consider, respectively:

What happens is that the river is a project… of course, this is not its fundamental objective, but it’s a great business. Why? Because the river will be a promoter of life quality that will generate some immense economic values for land, but also great real estate opportunities, because it will be a better city to live. And the best cities to live attract investments, attract business and economic development capacities. Now, we also have to achieve that the river is also an element of inclusion of equity, and not just an ambit for real estate speculation. And that is the objective of not only formulating the project, but to formulate the project simultaneously with the [forthcoming] land use plan , so that the land use plan, which is the long term general plan, which will go until 2027 regulates and orients adequately that “Parque del Río” doesn’t turn simply into a line of gardens and water. The park is really an element of the city’s structure. (R7P)

That will “move” the valley’s economy, mainly. In fact I think that is what mainly makes it so attractive. When river urban transformations are undertaken in other world rivers, like let’s say the Thames for example, that along the Thames they turned the area into very ex- pensive apartment units, that let’s say encouraged a whole economic sector which they were aiming at, right? To have let’s say, added value things. To have things more focused on services and production, or let’s say, alternative production. (R2C)

Finally, it is worth mentioning problems and goals are subject to change in subsequent phases of the execution of the Project (i.e. when construction works begin in mid-2014) since most of the interviewed actors (R1P, R2C, R3C, R4P, R5C, R6C) agreed that as the project moves on, new actors will start entering the project, either with a capacity of decision-making (like in the case of the councilmen) or actors who have interests in construction and real estate opportunities. It was rather surprising that the role of the private sector would be more visible in the PRM round. However, the private sector embodied in banks, retail and construction sectors were mentioned as ‘observing’ actors (R4P, R7P, R6C). De- spite it was recurrent that the private sector does play an important role in the project, these actors could not be explicitly identified and addressed to give an account as decision- makers in the PRM round.

As a civil society actor considered:

[When asked about the role of the private sector in the project] Of course! Without the private part, what we will have is a very nice park next to some workshops, right? The private part will have to reach “Barrio Triste”, “La Balladera”, La 33, the food center [riverside neighborhoods]. Bancolombia [one of Latin America’s biggest banks], is next to the river. It is a very clear signal of the private sector commitment here. Argos [a Colombian multination- al corporation of cement and concrete], which is next to the river and will build there a gigan- tic building to transfer all their personnel there, with a sustainable office-park concept, that blends with the “Parque del Río” project. The municipality does not have resources or the capacity to do [such] an urban transformation. The cities are not built by municipalities. They are built by the people who live in them […] And here is where the privates go. (R2C)

A civil society actor is concerned however, of the role the private sector will play in the project. The ´hypothesis´ of this actor is that:

The economic power subordinated the municipal power and, let’s say, the greatest hierarchy is the economic power, represented in the real estate sector, in the real estate agents, making a pressure to increase the value of land use, doing a speculation over the land value, specifi- cally in terrains where the best services of the city are located [along the river]. (R3C)

Other interviewees highlighted to role of the academy through Universities, who will become actors that give important input to the project.

Some [actors] have exited and some have entered […] in this moment we are trying to get into the academy, to take the project to an academic discussion… those river [academy sector] neighbors like Universidad de Antioquia, Universidad Nacional, Politécnico Jaime Isa- za Cadavid and Universidad EAFIT. We are just commencing the process with them. The mobility part also has a very strong tie with the Mobility Secretariat, the bicycle program of the AMVA and other public-private organisms for environmental issues… (R4P)

4.6 Arenas for Interaction

The following section aims to answer the question: What were the main policy arenas in the decision-making process and its outcomes?

The PRM round had two arenas: an ‘expert’ one in which qualified actors (jurors) deliber- ated to make the decision of choosing the final project draft, and a ‘citizen’ arena where ‘imaginary workshops’, ‘roundtables’ and other participatory mechanisms were held with the communities. These arenas could be identified because they became in the scenarios where two or more actors came together upon an issue that would affect the project’s outcomes. Each of these actors had a perception of the problem trying to get solved, and through their interactions they created progress to influence the decision-making. Accord- ing to van Gils and Klijn (2007:142) following Cohen et al. (1972): “the arena is the place or field where actors meet and interact. It is the place where a specific group of actors make choices on the basis of their perceptions of problems and solutions”.

The following section will explain these two arenas in more detail.

4.6.1 An Expert Arena: An ‘Insulated’ Scenario?

During the first half of 2013, the DAP and the project bureau with the cooperation of the Colombian society of architects (SCA) decided to open a two-round international contest for architecture, landscape and urbanistic designs to select the final proposal of Parque del Río Medellín. The contest officially opened through a worldwide convocation on early June 2013 receiving a total of 57 proposals from 13 different countries (40 from Colombia and 17 foreign). According to this association, participants (which included national or foreign, natural or legal persons, either acting individually or in joint ventures or consortia) submit- ted their proposals to the SCA. A jury of 7 experts was in charge of the evaluation. The jury included famous international and Colombian connoisseurs in architecture, landscape and urbanism, along with a ‘technical advisory committee’ with experience in issues related to civil engineering, roads, mobility, tunnels and infrastructure. The contest was regarded as a participatory and democratic scenario (R4P, R5C) and was considered as the second most important decision made in the PRM round (R2C, R3C, R4P, R5C, R6C, R7P, R8P). The most important decision was to develop the project itself (R1P, R7P, R8P, R2C, R6C).

The first round of the contest opened from June 12th to July 26th, 2013. This time allowed proponents to submit their designs according to the contests rules and regulations (cf. SCA,

2013). The experts of this arena took decisions following three (operating) rules inside the arena:

 Quorum: at least three jury members had to be present for deliberation;  Voting: each jury had one vote of equal value;  Majority: Decisions should be made (preferably) by consensus. If consensus is not reached, decisions were made by individual votes.

Peter G. Rowe, architect and former dean of Harvard’s Graduate of School and Design, who participated as part of the jury considered:

Medellin is like a lot of cities in the world that was settled around the river, and then, as time went on, the river got obscured from the development by virtually a lot of the artefacts of modernization, like roads and railway, and so on; and industry, seeking better locations along the water, and things of this sort. Now, these days are over and we need to recover the river and its environment; and make it central again as a symbol in the city, and this is true in Medellin because basically the river has been dominated entirely by transport network and by a lot of adjacent uses which were industrial which are no longer viable, and so, to recover the river seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do… impact, yes, a considerable impact because it’s going to go to areas that are central to the function of the city like the CBD and so forth. It’s also one of the few opportunities once you get into the, shall we say, the poorer neighborhoods of the north, where there are opportunities for the development of the river that provide a high degree of natural amenity for those communities, which is very important (EDU, 2013b).

Laura Spinadel, architect and former director of the Institute of Urban Aesthetic- Superior School of Applied Arts, Vienna- who was also part of the jury considered:

I believe this project should mobilize the whole society. But with concrete facts that change their everyday lives. It is the responsibility of this government, in not only bringing us to reward a paper, but to begin immediately to sensitize the value of this hidden heritage…there shouldn’t be a project for the renovation of “Parque del Rio Medellin”; there are many projects. We have short, medium and long-term interventions. Contemporary urbanism believes in chain reactions; namely, through the commencement of the first interventions next year, maybe, the market will surprise us, the people will surprise us, because, in no way we are working for a pope, we are not working for an emperor, we are working for… not Napoleon our intendant. […] There will be projects of popular participation, public-private partnerships, and a sum of surprises that will emerge in the domino effect, and, they arise from this kind of initiatives. One of the things that brought us together was to say no to that place-less architecture, with no identity (that could be found anywhere), and what cost us more, was to look for clear vision-oriented strategies, realist utopias, who had a sensibility for your environment, your culture and generate an added value…we searched a lot, and we found them (EDU, 2013b)

On August 12th 2013, a second round opened for the evaluation of only four of the 57 proposals. The four interim winners were summoned by the jury to respond to questions and submit answers related to their designs. The deadline for final submissions was on October 4th. In the meantime, the four final proposals had been socialized in different parts of the city like Universities, the local airport and during city-wide municipality activities, as well as important disclosure through the mass media.

On October 10-11th, the (7) jurors gathered to evaluate the four final proposals of the second round of the contest. On October 10th, the project bureau manager and a representative from the SCA as well the technical advisory committee summoned the four finalists, who had a timeframe of one hour to present their proposals and answer their questions. The next day, on October 11th, the DAP director opened the discussion with a presentation of the land use plan under elaboration, which is a fundamental input the proponents should have considered in their proposals.

The outcome of the expert arena was the evaluation of the four finalist proposals. The evaluation of proposal ‘WJ5’, will be described below.

Table 10: Final Evaluation of Criteria: Colombian Society of Architects (SCA)

Urbanistic Environmental Mobility Social/Cultural

The urbanistic aspect There is a ‘frank con- The proposal contem- The proposal presents a allows the project nection’ between the plates transversal [road park with a metropoli- transcend paper and relationship of the Me- corridors] along the tan character, integrat- an imaginary utopia, to dellín River and its ra- river either through ing the different city a “a road that can pro- vines underground, trenches, scenarios. duce change in an im- covered or uncovered mediate way” There is a connection surface The project proposes a between the two most set of bridges linked to The strategies for the important projects of The proposal has not the urban structure and interconnection be- the current administra- studied the relationship metro station, having a tween city-river are tion (i.e. Parque del Río between underground positive impact on the prototypical. The inter- Medellín and “Cinturón roads and the remain- immediate urban fabric. ventions are a strategy Verde Metropolitano” ing city road network of: “acupuncture to The project proposes two reestablish the city fab- The outlets of the ra- The project as proposed clear river shore inter- ric” vines contemplate great in the renders, has ‘ex- ventions: a more ‘urban- public spaces which cessive trust’ in the ized’ one and a more ‘celebrate ‘ their ecolog- construction of under- ‘natural’ one. Flora is ical importance ground roads and tun- very detailed which will nels to solve mobility aim for the project’s The proposal of citizens problems in the city identity. approaching to the river through beaches

is ‘naïve’, resulting in an impossibility at least in the medium term

After a process of roundtable with each of the four finalists, where detailed questions were answered by the project proponents, the jury was prepared to make a decision. Once the proposals were examined according to its virtues and inconveniences, a decision was made to award a first, second and third place award. The third place was awarded to team RE9 (UT Barcelona-Medellín Río) “The Garden of Río Medellín” and the second place was awarded to team AZ9 (UT-MAPAS+LAP+EDGAR MAZO) “Río Vivo Suena Cuando Vida Lleva”. The winning proposal (team WJ5) was awarded to “Latitud, Taller de Ar- quitectura”.

However, while this expert arena took place, other civil society actors (R3C, R5C, R6C) had their own internal discussions about the project’s interim progress. They were critical arguing the project did not have adequate public information and considered the project was unclear in many aspects, especially the one related to mobility and the dangers to build ‘underground’ motorways charging urban tolls, something that has never been implemented in Medellín. Another actor who occasionally holds expert discussion tables around themes related to quality of life in Medellín, also had serious repairs to the project’s disclosure. This actor considered the need to summon a ‘discussion table’ in early 2014 to discuss the project’s execution, severely questioning its disclosure. In fact, two civil society actors considered the project as being very ‘silent’, and with little visible opposition.

They [the municipality] disguises the name of socializing as consults, diagnoses, imaginaries workshops, and that’s what they call participation, which is what we are seeing this administration is doing to get to know what would be expected of the project. (R3C)

Nonetheless, with an open ceremony for the presentation of the winning proposal, the PRM round came to an end on October 30th, 2013. Nearly three years after and the involvement and deliberation of different actors through different moments, the project Parque del Río Medellín was finally drafted. According to Sebastián Monsalve, head architect of the winning proposal: “This project would not be possible without the participation of everyone. This is a project for all the people and therefore, everyone is invited to build it together” (Estación Ferrocarril 2013, Public hearing for presentation contest winner, October 30th).

The following quote serves to understand that the PRM decision-making round is rather closed, and discussions and debate in this round could have been broader:

As the project starts to progress and starts to be built, it will probably involve the Ministry of Transport, the Secretariat of Transport, the Infrastructure Secretariat... who else? The Secretariat of Environment, when construction and details begins, and stuff. EPM [energy,

water, gas and telecommunications public corporation] will have to enter there. EPM has a lot of [water and sewerage] networks [along the river] and many things that will need to be changed. Corantioquia, when the permissions for river occupation will have to enter. And then let’s say, people will start entering in an indirect fashion. Once let’s say… if the land use plan [of 2014] approves that the zones of lower downtown near the industrial zone should become residential, then the constructors will start entering there. The Univer- sities will also have to be there. So, let’s say as it begins growing [the project], it will have a lot of budget, a lot of people, and a lot of problems actually. (R2C)

Figure 18: Timeline and Phases of “Parque del Rio Medellin”

International Two-Round Tender Contest Design Construction

August 2013 October 2013

Contest Proposals First-round Drafts (4 Second-round Winning design received (57) selection finalists) selection proposal

March 2014 Development of architectonic design -Ideas -Concept design Construction -Main concepts & -Technical aspects: -Roads Development of -Hydraulic engineering designs -Structural -Financial

Structuring of engineering contracts Process of contracting engineering studies

Engineering contracts Studies and engineering designs Construction Source: Alcaldía de Medellín (2012c, translated from Spanish)

4.6.2 A Citizen- Local Government Arena: Where Did Public Participation Go?

The following section aims to identify the citizen-local government arena and answer the question: How has citizen participation been linked to the decision-making process? A reflection on Arnstein’s (1969) “ladder of citizen participation” and Fung’s (2006) “democracy cube” will help to complement the section.

As Arnstein (1969:216) discusses: “there is a critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the

process”. She constructs a ladder to answer the question what is citizen participation, de- scribing it as a ‘categorical term for citizen power’ and challenging the views others have claimed with ‘misleading rhetoric like absolute control’, an attribute, not even the President of the United States has or can have, she argues. Although Arnstein considers her ladder is a simplification of citizen participation, since it doesn’t consider the many nuances of this process, it is still a useful methodology to characterize citizen’s involvement into planning.

The investigation revealed that both citizen and the civil society actors participation fell under rungs 3 and 4 of the ladder: this is, ‘tokenism’ or symbolic participation, in which they had hear and voice (informing and consultation). At the third rung (informing), there is a single flow of information (from officials to citizens), and no guarantee exists for feed- back or negotiation power. At the fourth rung (consultation), there is no assurance that citizens’ concerns will be taken into account (R2C, R3C, R5C, R6C). The method most widely employed by the public sector at this rung is attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings and public hearings.

The investigation also revealed that the role of the project bureau was fundamentally to disclose information, to ‘socialize’ and hold ‘roundtables’, where it was questionable the citizens or the civil society actors could really influence the decision-making process. Hence, under these conditions: “they lack the power to ensure that their views will be heed- ed by the powerful. When participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow- through, no ‘muscle,’ hence no assurance of changing the status-quo” (Arnstein, 1969:217, emphasis on original). Although Arnstein argues her ladder is a ‘simplification’, since in the real world there might be “150 rungs with less sharp and pure distinctions among them”, it does help to understand a point she considers many have missed: that there are different degrees of citizen participation.

In contrast, Fung (2006) refers to citizen participation as an outcome of the institutional design in which decision-making takes place, and not a categorization. According to Fung (2006) to understand participation, one should consider three questions: Who participates? How is the communication and decision-making process? What is the connection between the conclusions and opinions on one hand, and public policy and action on the other? As he argues, decision-making can be the result of the interrelation among multiple arenas like planning agencies, stakeholder negotiations, and public hearings, or arenas in which the public sector operates in ‘insulated agencies’ without no public participation at all.

In these aspects, and according to Fung’s (2006) democracy cube, firstly, the investigation revealed that ‘who’ participated corresponded to ‘lay stakeholders’. This category makes reference to unpaid citizens who are very interested in a public concern and invest time and energy to represent others who aren’t as keen to participate (R4P, R3C, R5C). Besides the civil society actors, there was some citizen participation represented in the affected com-

munities (9 of the 16 communes5 of the city of Medellín). The project bureau held ‘imaginary workshops’ in which the social coordination of the project bureau approached the neighborhood boards, environmental tables of each commune, and the community leaders of those communes to socialize and inform them about the project’s main characteristics, and how their communities would be affected by the project’s execution. The workshops had two moments: one, an identification of the main problems in the areas of future intervention and second, the possible alternatives to solve identified problems. However, the process was once again to ‘socialize’ information, rather than incorporating into the decision-making process a negotiated encounter.

Secondly, the communication and decision mode followed a pattern of ‘listening as specta- tor’ and ‘expressing preferences’. These patterns were achieved in the ‘imaginary workshops’ held in the riverside communes (R4P). Finally, authority was best represented through a mix between direct authority and co-governing. This means opinions from the public were heard; however, they were not translated as part of the formal decision-making process.

During the ‘imaginary workshops’ several dynamics were identified: security (along the river and next to, homeless people, lack of illumination); environmental (green public spaces in the neighborhoods closest to the rivers whether fully appropriated or not, ravines that flow into the Medellín River); social (venues with an educational, environmental or social value); historical (houses of famous local people, museums, administrative centers, church- es). The outcome of the imaginary workshop was a map of the geo-referencing of such dynamics. The opinions and imageries that resulted in the discussion tables were then given as inputs and elements to the expert arena so that the four final proposals and eventually, the winning project proposal, incorporated these elements into the final designs. For example, how the communities would like to name the bridges from one side of the river to the other, the flora and fauna to be planted and the leisure and cultural venues. The public sector actors also referred to the work they did with the homeless population who lives and “drinks” from the river. Although such forgotten people are generally not regarded as part of the affected population in a project’s planning, the social division committed to work with the homeless and to compromise other Secretariats (Health, Social Welfare) to assist this population (R4P).

Relating Arnstein’s (1969) and Fung’s (2006) depiction of citizen participation and decision-making, the investigation revealed three elements. One, that citizens did not have the sufficient means to influence the second decision-making round of Parque del Río Medellín (R2C, R3C, R4P, R5C, R6C). The second element is tied to the first one. This is, that although public participation was not a decisive element of the decision-making process, or

5 A commune is an administrative division. Medellín has a total of 16 communes, each of them with its own neighborhoods. The city also has 5 additional ‘corregimientos’ or sub-urban (rural) areas. 62

was not sufficient, the municipality did take into consideration the opinions and views of the lay public who would be most affected by the project’s execution. This is confirmed because the project bureau set up the social division, who worked with the most affected communities by the project, allowing them to express their views, opinions and uncertain- ties.

The following quotations, explain from a public actor point of view, the process of citizen participation:

We [started] through that pyramidal structure of the commune. So we socialized first to the neighborhood boards, to the local development plans and tell them how their local development plan dialogues with Parque del Río Medellín… we started talking with the environmental tables of all the communes. And after that, we picked the communes which were located along the river, with the river’s neighbors. We presented the project in the neighborhood boards, in the neighborhood assemblies and started a participative process… we have also interacted […] with other secretariats who have a relationship with the river and the objective of Parque del Río Medellín. (R4P)

So that is when we considered a participation process with the communities, to tell them a project is coming… there was some degree of community incidence there, and what we did was to construct an informative-participative methodology in which people told us what is the current state of their territory, some aspects they would like to potentiate or advise on the territory who will be possibly intervened by the project. And besides that, to let them tell what do they want to do in the Medellín River… in the framework of this methodology […] what we gained there was that we gave to the bureau manager of Parque del Río Medellín the results of that information… that information would be then given to the contest, after the first round, when the four finalist were chosen. We told them, this is the information that part of the city told us… (R4P)

Nonetheless, as happened in the outcomes of the expert arena, a civil society actor expressed its skepticism about the process of public participation, as the actor considers citizens should have the power to decide.

One supposes that in this process (or at least that is the must be), there should be a strong work with communities, and how the nearby communities, including in fact communities that have been never listened to, such as the river inhabitants [homeless], the street inhabitants who live in the river, how they have entered in this process. That is the "must be", but I don’t know if this is happening. […] but surrounding citizen participation there are two schools of thought, let’s say two tendencies. One, that public participation is limited to the programmatic vote, which is: "if you elected me, I govern". And therefore what I do is to socialize things to you, because: "you elected me"… they disguise the name of socializing as consults, diagnoses, imaginaries workshops, and that’s what they call participation… there is another school which is what [we] want to implement, which is much related with

the rulings of the constitutional court in Colombia which say: "if Colombia is a social state of law, and the power is exercised by the sovereign, i.e. the people, then everything done in Colombia, the real participation, would be public consult." And a court ruling says: "one mode of public consult is popular vote". One… but there is multiple consults. (R3C)

A civil society actor is conscious that although there were ‘imaginary workshops’, ‘roundtables’ and meetings to ‘socialize’ the project to the community:

At the level of the everyday citizen, the level of decision-making is very scarce… [the level] is more of accompaniment, of opinion, right? But in decision-making as such, it’s a product that, let’s say, the municipality has been leading. (R2C)

The third element which was rather striking and therefore deserves a mention, is the fact that since the river is a “no man’s land”; since the city has grown “giving its back” to the river because of the current geographical conditions it faces (physical barriers, axis of mobility and water contamination), this natural scenario is not part of the imageries people have within the Aburrá Valley. Generally, it is the mountains that are well into the people’s imageries, but not the river.

As two civil society actors expressed:

I haven’t seen many citizen voices against the "Parque Vial del Río". Citizen voices who consider: "this is not it", they’re few. They’re rather isolated. Which in the case of "Cin- turón Verde" [second strategic project of the current administration], it has had much more echo. (R5C)

But that small stretch hasn’t needed to be socialized much, because it went through those contests, right? And in a way, it’s a way of making decisions, differently from what has been accustomed to here. If one looks at the process with the "Cinturón Verde" [second strategic project of the current administration], which the EDU is also in charge of, it is very different. That project of "Cinturón Verde" has relationship with the people, they have to negotiate… they have to… here, here? Here no. And since it’s done in a sector where fewest inhabitants are [located] in the river’s nearness, one can dream… I compare it because they’re both [...] mega projects. One hears: "And what will happen to my house? And where my children will study? And will they evict or do protection, or what?" But because they feel it’s theirs, that project has "peoples’ face", the river doesn’t […] It is easier to build it in the margin. It is a lot easier! It is easier when the project is not perceived from the population. (R6C)

Finally, regarding the concern of this investigation with citizen participation, and looking for clues and answers of the role of citizens’ play in planning, a key public sector actor considered there is in fact, a gap between governmental decision-making and public participation that can potentially influence decisions, as described in the following quotation:

That is an issue we always think of and the mayor tried through many means that this becomes wider and more plural. But… there are two dimensions. How much participation do you have? In which moments? With what objectives? So in that dimension, we have worked several things. Now, how we have insisted: the process of formulation of the development plan has citizen participation. Then, what has been done is an important level of discussion. But we think the very convocation of an international contest is an effort of participation, to the extent that we are publicly opening to all sectors who want to participate in the contest, become organized and present their proposals… the program has a very rich phase of citizen discussion and construction. It is a phase we are in right now, and it’s, after publicly exhibiting the results in many scenarios of the first and second phase of the contest, now what comes is a phase with a very important investment, in efforts to call the citizens to discuss, to propose, to participate. (R7P)

5. UN-EXPECTED FINDINGS AND REFLECTIONS

5.1 The Role of the Mayor of Medellín: Is the Project Safeguarded?

The elite interviews showed in a frequent way some elements that were not foreseen, or not contemplated in the interview guide. These elements were revealing and were not expected to be part of the decision-making process. The investigation revealed the role of the Mayor is key and fundamental to understand why the project was conceived, and why it is being developed. It looks like without the “political will” of the Mayor, the project is not realiza- ble, or becomes hard to achieve. Hence, the project is a “political decision” (R1P). The strong ties of the project bureau manager with the mayor were essential to understand how strategic decisions were made, as exemplified in the following quotes:

And the other theme, let’s say, is total trust on behalf of the Mayor towards me. So, (and he has let know this to all of his people) so let’s say, as manager I’m not moving (despite I have some things on top), myself ‘as such’, does not move in there [the administrative hierarchal circle]. I move next to the Mayor. You see? (R1P)

The first [decision] one and the biggest one is the will of the mayor Aníbal to assume the project as a priority, then to incorporate it in the development plan, which meant that, obviously how it is normed; that Medellín’s society, in general, under the processes of participation in planning, agreed that the development plan was going to be executed. That development plan then defined the budget allocations, the goals for "Parque del Río" and later, all the decisions of technical character, of gathering an important quantity of studies which had some antecedents years before… After having [coughs] all that assembled, comes the dimension of deciding to do an international contest that again has several dimensions. One, that it is a visible selection to the citizens of why a project is chosen and not another one; that is an intellectual product and not something of another nature; that is a plural, democratic and to have additionally, that the park becomes a strategy of internationaliza- tion of the city, but not through propaganda, but that Medellín becomes an object of analysis and reflection because the complexities of Medellín deserve for applying the most ad- vanced knowledge, […] So it is an experience that has had a process which is advancing. What comes now is the final contracting of studies of design, engineering and architecture, the execution of the first sector during the next two years. (R7P)

One public sector actor who is not part of the municipal or provincial government, but who acts as administrative entity also considered that:

To me, always, in an important project, the head is the leader. I see the mayor leading the project. Why? Because I’ve gone to several meetings, and he is there telling: “show me this, present this”, and he explains his points of view: “what do you think, what do you ad-

vise?”, and that is good to me. If the mayor does not lead, the project barely makes it. I see a very important role there, and hopefully it doesn’t get lost. (R8P)

It could not go without telling that a project of such magnitude, should not ignore its own continuity for the next administration, especially if it is done because of the “political will” of the Mayor. This investigation revealed there are some elements, especially of legal character, that could potentially safeguard the project for the coming administrations (2016- 2019 and forthcoming). However, this does not mean that the project’s continuity is guar- anteed. In fact three actors from the civil society (R3C, R5C, R6C) considered it is dangerous to trust the project will continue in future administrations. Nevertheless, one of the elements that could safeguard the project is how the project’s idea is embedded into the proposals of BIO 2030, which was approved by Metropolitan Agreement 13/2011. The second element is related to the current discussions for the coming land use plan (to be approved in mid-2014), in which the planning, zoning and land occupation criteria of Medellín are defined until the year 2027 and in which the project’s main proposals are to be embedded. A third element is the approval of the project by unanimity in the Metropolitan Board, through the legal figure of “metropolitan fact” (‘hecho metropolitano’ in Spanish), which according to the Colombian legislation: “metropolitan facts are the economic, social, tech- nological, environmental, physical, cultural, territorial, political or administrative phenomena, who simultaneously affect or impact two or more municipalities that conform the metropolitan area” (Ministerio del Interior, Ministry of Interior, Law 1625/2013).

As one public sector actor frames it:

I think this project […] we […] will continue to place it as a priority in our plans […] Un- der the legal perspective, we have to define some norms that must be observed in general way, but secondly that people see the input the project will make to the city and who can enjoy it. They will probably ask for that. So the coming administrations will be faced to realize it, to continue it. [It’s not only] a project in the “heat of an administration”, but a much longer process, and the guarantee of that is not only our advisory, but the citizenship above all. I mean, when the goodness of the project is seen, the governor [mayor] who comes will have to do it, because the citizens ask for it. (R8P)

The above mentioned elements could be identified, but they do not guarantee the project will continue as such, after the current mayor administration ends in December 2015. In fact, a civil society actor (R6C) questioned the fact that the project has not been fully incorporated into the coming land use plan discussions. An opinion that contradicts with the opinion of two key public sector actors (R1P, R7P) who consider the project is in fact, contemplated in the coming land use plan. Hence, there is a mismatch or a significant contrast between what the public sector and the civil society actors consider about the project’s continuity.

The following quotations from two public sector actors serve to illustrate this contrast:

Of course, of course. The Mayor Aníbal Gaviria has on its mind how can we "shield" this project… it was like that ["metropolitan fact"], and I say it to you: it was approved unani- mously in the council [meant Metropolitan Board]… this is when you see how "beloved" the project is. How the people see it, which is not only "us" the project. (R1P)

One of the challenges is that the land use plan, let’s say, incorporates the river project, which is being done this way, and that additionally we generate enough citizen conscious- ness on the project which allows that after the coming elections, the next mayor, let’s say, develops the complementary agenda of the project and so on because it is a project with a lot of ambition. In fact, it must be said that what Medellín is doing is giving a coherent continuity to something that comes from before… I don’t’ think there are many worldwide rec- ords of 8 or 9 municipalities who have done complementary processes of a river’s planning, and who have adopted the river as its future project. […] So one would say that in essence, the "Parque del Río" will not only have continuity but there is no doubt that it will be the structuring project of the future of Medellín. (R7P)

In clear and sharp contrast, three civil society actors considered:

[The Mayor] wants to be remembered for the “Cinturón Verde” [second strategic project of the current administration], “Parque del Río”, for “Naranjal” [housing project in a traditional workshop neighborhood], for two metrocables, for the tramway of Ayacucho, and perhaps these are too many mega works, and who knows what is he going to be able to do, and all of that. And if the next mayor will come with more restrain to do one or two of those things, but not all!… the finances of the municipality don’t hold that much, right?

There are a lot of risks. And this is an approach I have heard of many persons, and it’s the following: "Good, this administration is betting; it’s betting on it [the project] and they have the money to start doing the pilot trial. We will start with the portion between "La 30" and "San Juan" [two important streets in Medellín with river access]. And what happens if another mayor comes and says: "where is the financing for this, and where are we going to get the money from? We had this extra money, and so what?" So what remains is a punctu- al, partial intervention like a small patch. If there is another administration, how will this be tied during time? It should be a city project, not an administration project… so appropriation exists and when the next administration comes the people are demanding, or even during campaign [that the park] becomes a "battle-horse" and that the person [candidate] who is there saying: "I’m in pro of Parque Vial del Río", let’s say, has many votes in favor. I don’t see this very clear yet… I don’t see it very clear. (R5C)

Well, in the Colombian laws, a Metropolitan Agreement [fact] is just an "allegiance to the flag"… the whole city and the future administrations cannot be "put on board" in a project that perhaps may not be a priority in future administrations. So it would leave the city with "blank works". (R3C)

Finally, it was also revealed strategic decisions in the PRM round and the project’s continuity are also related to political interests. The project has received some serious repairs from behalf of the province’s guild of engineers, who have attacked the project through press releases and the media. A public sector actor considered the political interest is that the current mayor “doesn’t do well”; deserving “attacks” so the other one [political contender] doesn’t “suffer” (R1P, R8P). A civil society actor considers the project is being attacked because it serves to another city model, different from the model proposed by the contender’s political line (R2C). Despite these opinions cannot be treated as facts or findings, they were recurrent in three of the interviewees responses, as well as the data collected through mass media.

5.2 Regulations and... Are Voids Bridgeable?

It was revealed that all of the actors involved in PRM round were clear in terms of ac- knowledging the most important regulations that both the project and the decision-making process is embedded into. Two important trends in the answers interviewees gave illustrate their awareness of the institutional and legal framework the project is fixed into. First, it was recurrent the answer of both public and civil society actors on how the project is not only embedded into the municipal development plan, but that it is also part of the guidelines set forth in the BIO 2030 plan. This allows confirming that the PRM round is actually part of the BIO 2030 plan (cf. Alcaldía de Medellín, 2012a:381). On the other hand, the respondents are very aware that the coming land use plan to be approved in 2014, will have a considerable significance on how the remaining parts of the project Parque del Río Me- dellín (i.e. construction works) develop, and how the land use plan will determine the continuity of the project for the coming administrations.

As two civil society actors responded when asked of their awareness of regulations:

Yes, the development plan is the road map which we were also analyzing. That is [the development plan] the public policy for Medellín for the next four years, right? So we have that. BIO 2030 let’s say is also a public policy at the metropolitan level with another type of authority [the AMVA], but it’s also there. That is for the political decision-making […] And the most important of all […] the land use plan. The land use plan… I don’t think he [the mayor] will have much problem with the [municipal] council to approve this land use plan that has all this included [Parque del Río Medellín], this will be determinant for development. Well, it all depends on legal voids, or twists like in the previous land use plan, how this is going to be dealt with or how keen will people be that the land use plan becomes accomplished. (R2C)

The law that regulates this park or this initiative is contemplated in the administrative structure of law 136 [of 1994], which says that all governors should have a development plan. (R3C)

On the other hand, it was revealed how both public sector and civil society actors were able to recognize three crucial voids: environmental, social and economic. The civil society actors where most worried about these kind of voids. They think that a project of such scope, should have first considered an important task of decontaminating the river and its ravines. They reflect that the first step the municipality should have taken was to clean the river and then begin with infrastructure works.

For one to do any work around the river, one has to show the river is clean. Many of the worldwide works around rivers, we are talking about the Thames, in Madrid and Barcelo- na, the first thing they did was a very straightforward action towards the cleansing of the river and then the intervention. Here, it has been done parallel but in a very slow fashion. (R3C)

What I say is that there has to be a greater citizen appropriation to look for the project’s detail. I mean, how this collates with the river’s decontamination. That it’s not only there. It is from up the slope where all the ravines of the city are. How do you collate that to a better environmental education. (R5C)

Well, I think that… for example: the environmental impact isn’t studied. A project like this one has an environmental impact. I mentioned this since the beginning… that’s serious. (R6C)

The environmental void, as the respondents expressed, is very tied to a social void, and that is a second element which was recurrent on how both public and civil society actors framed it. The social void is precisely the lack of the appropriation of a public space:

In Medellín, the river is seen twice a year. Twice... twice. In an indirect fashion. One, when the Christmas lights are set along the river. I mean, they paint and makeup the river… and the other indirect fashion, when the events of "Feria de las Flores" [flower parade], all the parades which are done on the roads […] So one is giving its back to the river. This happens two days a year. The other 363 days, do we look at the river? (R3C)

[…] the river has been never perceived, nor as a neighborhood, nor as a place for appropriation. That place is appropriated one month during Christmas, right? The rest of the time the river is a… is a barrier. So if a project brings near one side to another, creates public space… be it welcome. But not because it is being appropriated by some persons (R6C)

I don’t imagine of a family enjoying of a picnic there, in the park, […] with the most nause- ating smell […] I mean, it makes no sense. The appropriation of the river will have to be tied to an increasingly decontaminated river. (R5C)

The project is a very "nice" experiment, but… [when asked about social voids] What I told you before: security, about space friendliness, how will people get to the appropriate from it or not […] Up to what point nearby spaces will be appropriated from behalf of the citizens, since they’re currently not as strongly appropriated. People should go to the park as they do in other parts of the world: like the Central Park in New York, Hyde Park in Lon- don, Palermo Park in Argentina, the Mall in Washington [DC]. (R2C)

Finally, civil society actors expressed their worries about the unclearness of the project’s financing. They considered it is not clear yet what will the exact cost of the project be. An actor even questioned about why a decision to start with architectonic works was chosen over a decision that deals with the engineering aspects of the project. In the actor’s opinion:

Many have expressed that before doing architectonic works, which is what the contest has in fact proposed, engineering solutions should have been thought about and adapt the architectonic design to the engineering design. However, in the planning department they think otherwise: "First we dream, and then we’ll see how engineering resolves…”. (R6C)

5.3 Can We Really Speak of Urban Planning in Medellín?

The following section aims to present a description on how the most influential actors in the PRM round regard the planning practice in the city. The purpose of this section is to make a contribution and reflection to the urban planning practice in international spheres. The respondents generally agreed that urban planning and the planning of strategic projects is very context-dependent. This means, they regarded there is no uniqueness on how planning should be undertaken because environmental, social, geographical, cultural, legal and political factors are determinant to understand how places get planned and transformed.

One important trend found in three interviewed actors is that they regard planning in Me- dellín as context dependent (R2C, R6C, R7P). They consider there is an old tradition of architecture and engineering in the city which dates back to more than a century ago, and that the city, through time, has achieved its urban planning by learning from other (foreign) experiences and adapting them to the local spatial and territorial context. However, one influential civil society actor is worrisome about how planning has been achieved in the city. In the actor’s opinion, planning in Medellín has been achieved upon facts, upon matters that already took place: “In the first place there is a lot planning that is not done. The city keeps growing in the informality on the margin of planning” (R6C). This actor considered there was some degree of planning:

Very strongly, since the decade of the fifties, precisely when planning appears. But it appears in a half-way done city! Yes? And it [the city] had already decided that the roads would pass by the river; who had already decided that the poor were going to live in the

north and the rich, first in downtown, and then in the south; who had already decided that the industry would be located in the river axis; that the great municipal services would be in the river’s border. I really think many things have been done upon facts. Few real decisions have been made. (R6C)

About how Medellín has blended international planning experiences and adapted them to the local realities, a public sector and two civil society actors considered, respectively:

I think than in general we have in fact, a very rich tradition in planning, if we compare ourselves for example, to the conventional American continent structure of similar cities. I think that here, the fact of having a tradition in schools of engineering, architecture, social sciences and others, which is really important, and having done planning so many decades ago, even the pilot plan of the nineteen fifties which was a plan of capital avant-garde in the world; this has generated a capacity as a city to plan with relative quality. What happens is that is always a relative valuation depending on who do you compare with. When you compare the planning of these cities with the planning of cities with a lot of civility, with a lot of history, it is obviously more difficult. […] Because the pace in which the questions grow, the queries, the social, physical-spatial, environmental and urban problems of a city like Medellín, which has multiplied its population more than tenfold in the last 70 years, well, obviously the capacity of response from planning is more limited. (R7P)

I think the biggest learning is from the own conditions we have here, right? To see the problems we have and see what we can do and what we can’t do […] but at the same time [taking] international examples. "Parque del Río" is an example of several international experiences like in Barcelona, Madrid, Seoul… there is a very close relationship between Me- dellín and Barcelona. Medellín is a city that blends interesting factors [planning wise]…one of them is that the region believes to better in comparison to the rest of the country, a very specific culture and a third one, which I think is part of the first two, and is that the people of the city [Medellín] are very concerned about their city, right? And they are very into city issues… it’s not an impersonal city were people just go to work […] When the metro of Me- dellín was built a lot was searched for around the world to see how it was going to be set. The topic of public bicycles, which in Medellín is just an echo on what has happened in Am- sterdam, Paris and Barcelona […] since about 100 years ago Medellín has had a strong group of engineers and architects who are permanently thinking the city […] Planning is more into people’s imageries […] and I think the past [mayor] administrations have done interesting planning exercises at different levels […] it is up to the next mayor and social pressure that this remains maintained. (R2C)

[…] there is some experience in a similar process, for example with the Metrocable. Which is the transfer of a technology made for ski, for snow sports, and now… (That works three months a year). And now for a service [in the slopes of Medellín] who works 18 hours a day, all the days… well, in that we might agree on. (R6C)

Finally, the most important aspect to be able to talk about planning in Medellín and the planning of a strategic project like Parque del Río Medellín, is that what is written in the land use plans, does not correspond to what’s actually done. Three civil society actors (R2C, R3C, R6C) considered the land use plan as an important instrument of planning the future of the city. A civil society actor considered that it is very important the citizen’s commitment to become keener with planning in the city (R2C) precisely to avoid:

[…] a city that has acted upon accomplished facts, and who has exerted very few control over the development… over, what by the norm it can control. But also, I think that, and this is very important to say, when it is forced to do a land use plan, it does one thing on the paper (that can be very interesting), but that in twelve years, everything but what’s on paper has been done. (R6C)

[…] the objective of not only formulating the project, but to formulate the project simultaneously with the land use plan [2014], so that the land use plan, which is the long term general plan, which will go until 2027 regulates and orients adequately, that "Parque del Río" doesn’t turn simply into a line of gardens and water. The park is really an element of the city’s structure […] So what’s the project missing? I think, missed? The only think I would think of is even more, even more, although there is a lot, collective appropriation of the society. (R7P)

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Overview of Investigation, Findings and Expectations

The thesis aimed to research through the theories around governance, the process of stakeholder interaction and citizen participation as theoretical approaches to produce (better) plans in strategic projects. Innovative ways of governing are increasingly finding a place in modern societies thanks to the involvement of third parties, different from the classical top- down state centric approach. The theorists of governance advocate for a society where power and decisions follow consensus among the different actors. The cliché statement of the ‘blurring of boundaries’ between the state and civil society, as ubiquitous as it can be, shouldn’t be underestimated.

To contribute to the governance literature in a country like Colombia, the investigation analyzed through elite interviews, policy document analysis and media, the decision-making process around the strategic project Parque del Río Medellín, located in the metropolitan area of Aburrá Valley, Colombia (AMVA). The history of Parque del Río Medellín as a project is long, since similar attempts have been on the municipal agenda as early as the 1950s of the 20th century, when renowned international urbanists and architects visited Me- dellín and crafted the first pilot plans, for a planning practice and tradition that was just beginning to take shape. However, only until recently (2011), the project acquired a concrete character, especially after the crafting of the BIO 2030 Director Plan of Aburrá Val- ley, which endorsed the land use pattern(s) and urban growth strategies of the metropolis until the year 2030. In 2012, in the current administration (2012-2015) of the mayor of Me- dellín, Aníbal Gaviria, the project was formally included as a ‘flagship project’ in the Mu- nicipal Development Plan which is the ‘roadmap’ of Medellín’s social, economic, environmental and infrastructural planning for the four year mayor period.

The Parque del Río Medellín is essentially a project with a twofold purpose: it contributes to close the deficit of public space in the city (which places Medellín as one of the worst performing cities in Latin America in terms of meters of green space per inhabitant), and it aims to enhance mobility solutions of the metropolis, since the current regional and national road and metro network run along the riverside. The project aims to the construction of a 23 hectare park, taking the Medellín River as the main natural structuring element within the city. Above all, the project challenges the traditional land use patterns of the metropolis, which has saturated in construction the slopes of the valley to an almost unsustainable point. The first section of the project named a ‘pilot project’, will commence construction in mid-2014, and will culminate towards December 2015, when the current mayor period ends. However, the aim of the project is strategic and therefore at least two (or more) forth-

coming mayor administrations will be needed to conclude with the project’s main objectives.

The decision making of Parque del Río Medellín was investigated through the ‘rounds’ model, which proved to be useful and straightforward for the case study. Two main actors were identified in this decision-making: public sector and civil society. Four important actors from the public sector were interviewed. These were: the planning director of Medel- lín, the project bureau manager of Parque del Río Medellín, the social coordinator of the project bureau, and the planning director of the metropolitan authority. In turn, four civil society actors also contributed to the empirical findings. These were, “The Green City” or “La Ciudad Verde” which is the national platform for sustainable cities in Colombia, the citizen oversight body for the Municipal Development Plan, the coordinator of the inter- institutional alliance of private organizations “Medellín How Are We Doing”, and the president of Medellín’s Territorial Planning Council. The main research question that guided the thesis process was: How have the different actors been interrelated in the decision- making process around Parque del Río Medellín and what were the policy outcomes?

Based on both literature review and research thesis statement (working hypothesis), it was expected that the case study revealed a close connection of the actors involved in the decision-making process (in terms of problems and goals, interests and resources, their degree of influence and their awareness on the institutional framework, the potential voids and the planning practice in the city of Medellín). In other words, that the actors involved would shape and make progress in the decision-making process in a collaborative fashion, as the ‘rounds’ model suggests. The researcher assumed beforehand, that the different selected actors (both public sector and civil society), would be interrelated in a closely-knit fashion, since these are generally the main actors present in most of the urban planning experiences in the city. The empirical findings revealed that the actors shared common views on the problems and goals, a general sharing of the actor’s interests around the project Parque del Río Medellín (i.e. about the relevance to solve a problem of public space and mobility), and their acknowledgement of the potential project voids.

Nonetheless, it was discovered the public sector actors (municipal government) had the most power in terms of tangible resources and decision-making capacity. This means that in the end, the municipal government made the final and most important decisions in the round under investigation. The expectation on the influence to shape the decision-making process on behalf of civil society actors was only partially fulfilled, as it was revealed these actors gingerly influence this process in strategic projects like Parque del Río Medellín. The role of the metropolitan authority (AMVA) as public sector actor was also important in terms of environmental and mobility aspects’ surrounding the project, and it was revealed that this actor will have a much stronger influence when the project enters its construction phase. However, the metropolitan authority’s role was mild as the municipality of Medellín

was the most influential actor both in terms of tangible resources and capacity to make decisions.

About the resources employed to influence decision-making, it was revealed there is also a gap or an imbalance in the possession of such resources. For example, tangible resources in the decision-making process were widely used by the public sector actors. However, the investigation showed civil society actors rely more on their intangible resources such as knowledge, recognition, convening power, credibility, visibility, professional background etc. Despite civil society actors were well aware that they could not directly influence decision-making, they all agreed that from past experiences, their opinions are taken into consideration by the public sector actors. Hence, their intangible resource is their most valuable asset, and can frequently outcast tangible resources deployed by the public sector actors. In other words, although financial resources may have a crucial and decisive impact in how power structures are built around strategic projects, resources that are difficult to monetize may have an equally important weight and can potentially account for a more balanced system of governing societies and executing strategic projects.

On the other hand, both public sector and civil society actors involved in the decision- making around the project Parque del Río Medellín, acknowledged there are three crucial voids surrounding the project’s interim execution. First, an environmental void related to the decontamination of the river. A dirty and polluted river (as it is in the present) should become a priority of intervention before the actual project’s construction, as all of the civil society actors claimed. This void leads to the second one, which is a social one. Both public sector and civil society actors involved in decision-making were well aware of the problems a contaminated river milieu could have on citizen’s appropriation and sense of belonging to the project. The priority to decontaminate the river is paramount since otherwise, the project would be a ‘very nice’ park or a ‘line of water and gardens’ as a public sector actor framed. Finally, as in all strategic projects, it was also discovered there was a high degree of uncertainty on how the project would be financed, by whom and under what conditions. Despite the total worth of the project ascends to 2 billion Colombian pesos, the current administration has a total budget of 275 thousand million Colombian pesos, or a seventh of the total cost of the project. This finding raised several concerns: How will the remaining budget become financed? By who? Is the budget of the municipality perpetually buoyant? Will a public-private partnership become a potential solution for the project’s funding?

It is well known the total cost of projects of such scope are well surpassed, as in different planning experiences of strategic projects around the world, the famous budget ‘overruns’ are frequent. This investigation revealed it is unclear how this void will be solved. In turn, the role of the private sector would have been much more visible; nonetheless, although the decision-making actors acknowledged that the private sector represented through banks, construction firms and private investors will have an important role in the project’s execu-

tion, at the present time, it is very unclear what kind of participation and interests these private actors have. Both public sector and civil society actors regarded the role of the private sector around the project as ‘observing’ actors. Although it was recurrent that the private parties do play an important role in the project, these actors could not be explicitly identified and addressed to give an account as decision-makers.

Furthermore, another important expectation of the thesis was the role of citizen or public participation in planning. Departing from the rich literature that surrounds participation in the planning domain, it was expected the case study would reveal more citizen participation or civil society debate, since all of the public sector actors highlighted that participation was an important component of the project. The social coordination of the project bureau was established for the promotion of citizen participation around the project, holding community meetings in 9 of the 16 communes of the city of Medellín, which have a geographic connection to the river. However, it was discovered and confirmed that although there was some degree of citizen involvement, it happened more in the line of traditional citizen participation in planning, which is exemplified through ‘imaginary workshops’, ‘socializations’, disclosure, or as simple ‘tokenism’ (symbolic participation) as Arnstein (1969) re- calls. It can be said that the public sector actors in fact ‘disguised’ citizen participation, just because they prepared and promoted the above mentioned participatory mechanisms. Yet, these were far from affecting the formal decision-making process. So in the end, although the public sector actors considered citizen participation was achieved, in reality, it was just a very small and trivial component of the case study. The current investigation placed a lot more expectations on the active role of citizens participating in the decisions around the project, which in the (interim) progress of the case study, this was only partially fulfilled. This finding does not undermine the content of the investigation, but instead, it aims to contribute to the empirical findings on literature based in participatory mechanisms in a project’s planning.

Hence, the thesis statement or working hypothesis of this investigation could be confirmed or corroborated. The thesis statement was that, despite public participation is a ‘key component’ in the planning practice and most of the times planners accept the fact that participation can produce (better) enduring plans (Brody, Godschalk & Burby, 2003), in practice, interactive governance and governmental decision-making processes live apart from each other (Edelenbos, van Schie & Gerrits; 2009:74) or what Fung (2006) argues: values, opinions, and solutions that result from the interactive process are not translated in regular governmental decision-making structures and vice-versa. Also, Arnstein’s (1969:216) asser- tion could be also corroborated by the empirical findings. She considers there is a difference between going through the ‘empty ritual of participation’ and the power to affect policy outcomes.

As it was revealed through the empirical findings, the citizen’s opinions and solutions resulting from the interactive process barely had a meaning or influence on the formal decision-making process. Despite the municipal government utilized participatory scenarios to approach the communities to socialize to them information and considered that citizen participation is key in the planning of projects in the city, the citizens’ opinions and perceptions were not translated into the formal decision-making. This finding raised the following questions: Is there a strategy behind which is used by the public sector to praise the virtues of citizen participation? What kind of citizen participation is really happening in strategic projects and how can this participation be described?

6.2 (Un) Expected Revelations

Despite the above-mentioned expectations were not thoroughly fulfilled, the investigation did reveal two important elements that were not expected or were not foreseen, which the empirical findings showed in a rather recurrent way. The first one, is the preponderant role the mayor of Medellín in the achievement of the project; his “political will” and commitment to the project’s execution; his willingness to ‘shield’ the project for future administrations, and his strong ties with other key decision-making actors like the project bureau manager or the planning department director. Hence, it turned out to be a project with an individualistic imprint represented through a political figure. This fact was verified on how both civil society actors and even, the public sector actors regarded the role of the mayor. This finding was very telling of the kind of power and decision-making capacity the mayor has. But also, this finding could be potentially revealing for the kind of governance structure found in a Latin American country like Colombia, where the role of the political figure could be potentially determinant for the achievement of political interests. This outcome could possibly become a point of departure for further investigations on decision-making.

However, as this kind of project resulted in part, because of an unsustainable urban growth pattern of the metropolitan area of the Aburrá Valley, and in part from political gambles, it should also be noted that it is dangerous or risky the role the current mayor partakes in the execution of the project, as there is no guarantee(s) the next administration(s) will endorse the project the way the current government is framing it. Although there were two important elements that can potentially explain the project’s continuity in the long run (i.e. more than two administrations), one being the approval of the project as a ‘metropolitan fact’ through the metropolitan board and the other one, being the project’s inclusion as a land use model in the forthcoming land use plan which will structure the city until the year 2027, there is no certainty that the next mayor(s), be them from the same political ‘current’ or not, will give the project the priority this administration is putting into. After all, the fact that Parque del Río Medellín is a ‘flagship project’, the way it is titled in the Municipal Development Plan, is very telling of the kind of political imprint it has. Furthermore, the

near future may bring the attention of other more pressing issues in the municipal agenda, deviating the attention (and funding) for the project.

The second element the investigation revealed is more a metaphoric one, or a symbolic one, but could be determinant to understand why such a strategic project has been rather unno- ticed or lacks of more citizen appropriation and participation. The investigation revealed that the Medellín River is perceived as a ‘no man’s land’ within the heart of the city, because of physical barriers it encounters in the present day. This has had serious effects through the times on how citizens perceive their relationship with the river. For example, the river has been both the (unexploited) natural structuring element of the city, but at the same time the axis of regional and national mobility. Land use patterns around the river have been left untouched to foster other potential urbanistic solutions like housing, recreation, leisure or commercial activities. The establishment of industries mainly steel, coffee, beverages, textiles, cement and others, has created a unique outline of land use in the riverside areas of the metropolis. The industrial milieu and the road and metro network that run along the river, have had particular effects on the imaginaries of Medellín’s inhabitants, since for most part of the river’s course, the natural scenario is restricted for citizen appropriation. Hence, the citizen’s imageries around the Aburrá Valley have revolved through times around other natural scenarios, like its mountains and slopes. As a consequence, it could be inferred that the current land use pattern in the city, which has almost saturated to an unsustainable point the slopes of the valley, has been an event that has forced to find new perspectives for land use. In the last decade mainly, construction has been particularly merciless, especially in the developing of housing (e.g. gated communities and high-rise apartment buildings) in the slopes of the Aburrá Valley. It turns out that now, available space to keep up with the housing demands and the growing economy cannot any longer sustain the current city model.

It is therefore understandable that the riverside areas, and in particular the Parque del Río Medellín project is belatedly receiving the adequate attention for the sustainability and the future of, not only the city, but the metropolis and the region. However, as paradoxical as it can be, the river remains rather unobserved. It was expected a strategic project with such scope and importance would be more controversial, but the way on how the river is perceived by the citizens has allowed the project to advance without much belligerence, strong debate or controversies from behalf of the population, as it isn’t the case with a similar strategic project that takes the slopes and the mountains of the Aburrá Valley as its point of intervention.

Hence, the investigation also revealed that in fact, ‘by giving our back to the river, we cannot find our city’s future’. The future of Medellín depends on the potential uses the riverside areas will face. It seems perfectly reasonable that Medellín is seeking to replicate other worldwide experiences of river recovery, to accommodate the pressures the metropolis will

face in the coming 20 years and beyond, in terms of sustainability, mobility, public space, and housing. But it also becomes paradoxical that despite the rich practice of urbanism, architecture and engineering in the city, which dates for more than a century now, urban planning has been a very new process fostered in a formal way, only after the Constitution of 1991. This historic fact then leads to the statement: ‘planning for the future or the future demanding for planning’, in which the researcher of the thesis aimed to contribute to a reflection on how planning has been undertaken in Medellín; is planning a mean to prepare and anticipate for the future of the city? Or is the future (e.g. imminent population and economic growth) demanding for planners and decision-makers to plan? There is no right or wrong answer to both questions. What is true is that Medellín will have to think thoroughly on how to achieve its sustainability in its future.

6.3 Limitations of the Investigation and Reflections

In the historical context of Colombia, regarding its habits and urban planning policies, as this is a newly created field, trying to match foreign avant-garde academic methodologies to facts and events of local projects, was a challenge due to lack of backgrounds that allowed previous observations. In other words, this thesis was done in ‘real time’, suffice it to say, while progress was happening in the executions of the project under investigation, in unison, this thesis project was made. That is, in certain moments it was necessary to give a wait or a stop to see the culmination of facts around Parque del Río Medellín.

Another difficulty around this research was the high uncertainty about working on a topic that ultimately, could have some certainty in its outcomes or completion. That is, the researcher had no control over the events that could happen to nourish the appropriate development and completion of the thesis, since the events under observation occurred in tandem with the research. It is well known how hard it is to follow the progresses or advances in a project of historical, social, political and economic magnitude as the one proposed and much more, in the conditions of a country like Colombia where political decisions are subject to multiple swings under the influence of internal and external events.

The above two statements, then lead to the following reflection which is, despite the Teis- man ‘rounds’ methodology is clear and straightforward to analyze multi-party decision- making process in urban development projects, usually this methodology could be better applied in longitudinal investigations. In other words, the methodology can be better employed to understand decision-making processes in projects that have had long durations in their executions. A research employing the ‘rounds’ model, is typically investigated by re- searchers who follow a decision-making process of 5-10 years (or more). As said earlier, adjusting this methodology to a project which formally started roughly two years ago, was challenging because the events subject to investigation happened in ‘real time’. Nonethe- less, since the research placed more expectations and positioned as a point of departure

both the theories around governance and the role of public participation, the ‘rounds’ model seemed more appropriate for this choice of investigation. Otherwise, the case study would have been addressed through other decision-making methodologies, widely applied as well, such as the ‘phase’ methodology, which assumes there is a single actor behind decisions. This and other kinds of methods however, were a supposition the researcher wanted to avoid, as in the ‘rounds’ model, the researcher is given the freedom to assume there are no central decisions made by a single actor, but rather, decisions are taken by various actors. Hence, they result from an a priori order or hierarchy.

On the other hand, a limitation of the current investigation was precisely to accommodate the term governance, employed mainly in the European and Anglo-Saxon contexts and empirical debates, to a very different context like in the case of Colombia, characterized by a post-conflict scenario, a developing economy with other worries and preoccupations, and a very apathetic society towards public participation. The expectation to find a more balanced problem-solution between public sector and civil society actors was partially achieved. It was discovered the civil society actors are actively engaged in decision-making but their roles serve more as actors who are ‘monitoring’ or ‘watching’ over the performance of the municipality, especially in how the public sector spends resources, administrates the city and promotes accountability for its actions. Nonetheless, this limitation should not be understood as a shortcoming of the investigation, but rather as a valuable finding over the kind of governance structure in the city of Medellín, and as an observation that can contribute to the enrichment of further debates around governance in developing countries about the roles civil society actors play in the monitoring municipal government performance.

Also, an identified shortcoming of this investigation was the non-interviewing of lay citizens in the PRM round. But perhaps, this shortcoming is not to be misunderstood since the investigation centered on the decision-making process, and therefore, lay citizens would provide scarce information for the thesis. The research question had to keep a proportion with the data collection methods.

The present thesis was a project achieved in ‘real time’ without rear-view or perspective. However, this limitation can be considered as strength since from the very beginning, the project was under review, monitoring and analysis of the actors and the decisions taken at a given time. This fact will serve as a historical input, academically and socially, for other investigations or future stages or rounds that take place in the chosen project.

7. EPILOGUE

The Teisman round methodology allows for future decision-making rounds to be analyzed in the project Parque del Río Medellín. The rounds model advantage is that the decision- making process is ‘selective in nature’. This means that the researcher has a set of assump- tions based on the decision-making process, and observes to conform them. On the other hand, the rounds model assumes that policies do not exist at an exact point. Rather, policies result from a continuous process of a series of decisions taken by different actors.

There is one important element to be considered in future investigations of decision-making in the project Parque del Río Medellín, and this could potentially explain in more detail the role of citizen participation around the project’s construction in the near future. On Novem- ber 21, 2013, the (digital) citizen participation platform ‘MiMedellín’ was officially launched. The platform consists of asking citizens in general how they can contribute with their ideas to make of Medellín a better place to live. The concepts of ‘innovation’ and ‘co- creation’ are taken as theoretical pillars where priorities and solutions are identified to give city challenges a transparent and open solution. A series of ‘challenges’ and ‘questions’ are asked to the general public. The project Parque del Río Medellín has its own question and challenge, respectively: How do you imagine a direct connection between Parque del Río Medellín and “Cerro Nutibara”?, and the challenge: How would you fill with life the lower areas of the bridges that cross the Medellín River? The goal of the ‘MiMedellín’ platform is to give inspiration to the municipal government as an element to achieve a better city. And the citizens, who can take advantage of digital social networking as platforms for decision-making.

A second important element that could be analyzed as a decision-making round is the final approval of the coming municipal land use plan for Medellín, which will structure the city’s land use, zoning, densification and urbanistic criteria until the year 2027. The coming land use plan is due on the first semester of 2014 and it has been an intense (and controversial) planning exercise which involves mainly civil society actors represented in the different guilds, associations and social groups who make part of the municipal planning council. It would be useful to analyze the actors involved in this decision-making round and their views on the problems and goals. This round is crucial to analyze because it allows understanding how will the forthcoming city model be, and how the project Parque del Río Me- dellín will aim to contribute to that city model. Recent events in the city of Medellín, like the collapsing of a high rise residential tower, in a heavily occupied slope, already gives planners and specially politicians bold hints, that the current city model should consider an area of the city which has a lot to exploit, but due to historical, infrastructural, cultural and

economic dynamics, has not had a chance to show its full potential. This scenario is without any surprise the Parque del Río Medellín.

REFERENCES

Agranoff, R. & McGuire, M. (2001). Big Questions in Public network management Re- search. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,11/3, 295-326.

Alcaldía de Medellín. (1999). Acuerdo Municipal No. 062 Por el cual se adopta el Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial para el Municipio de Medellín. Retrieved from:http://www.medellin.gov.co/irj/go/km/docs/wpccontent/Sites/Subportal%20de l%20Ciudadano/Planeaci%C3%B3n%20Municipal/Secciones/Normas/Documentos /2011/Acuerdo%2062%20de%201999.pdf

Alcaldía de Medellín. (2006). Acuerdo Municipal No. 046 Por el cual se revisa y ajusta el Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial para el Municipio de Medellín y se dictan otras disposiciones Retrieved from: http://www.medellin.gov.co/irj/go/km/docs/wpccontent/Sites/Subportal%20del%20 Ciudada- da- no/Convivencia%20y%20seguridad/Secciones/Plantillas%20Gen%C3%A9ricas/Do cumentos/2012/Acuerdo%2046%20de%202006.pdf

Alcaldía de Medellín. (2010). Departamento Administrativo de Planeación. Retrieved from http://www.medellin.gov.co/irj/portal/ciudadanos?NavigationTarget=navurl://57f8e cd3b66b93d6b7e5add789f4f3be

Alcaldía De Medellín. (2011). BIO 2030 Plan Director Medellín, Valle De Aburrá. Bogotá, DC: Mesa Editores.

Alcaldía de Medellín. (2012a). Plan de Desarrollo 2012-2015, Medellín, un hogar para la vida. Retrieved from http://www.medellin.gov.co/irj/portal/ciudadanos?NavigationTarget=navurl://90b95 4e4cc54924b972c3ac7e05be7dc

Alcaldía de Medellín. (2012b). El Consejo Territorial de Planeación –CTP- entregó a la Administración Municipal su concepto sobre el Plan de Desarrollo 2012 – 2015. Retrieved from http://www.medellin.gov.co/irj/portal/ciudadanos?NavigationTarget=navurl://1cf8d 6cb48bec947d3afd87d27777250

Alcaldía de Medellín. (2013). Fondo Medellín Ciudad para la Vida. Retrieved form: http://www.medellin.gov.co/irj/portal/ciudadanos?NavigationTarget=navurl://42a82 b3dadaa3c45f217491331362b20

Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35/4, 216-224.

Beamer, G. (2002). Elite Interviews and State Politics Research. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2, 86-96.

Bevir, M. (2011). Governance as Practice, Theory and Dilemma. In: M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Governance (pp.1-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bingham, L.B., Nabatchi, T., and O’Leary, R. (2005). The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government. Public Administration Review, 65/5, 547-558.

Brownill, S. & Parker, G. (2010). Why Bother with Good Works? The Relevance of Public Participation(s) in Planning in a Post-collaborative Era. Planning Practice and Research, 25/3, 275-282.

Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen Participation: Models and Methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 30/11, 1179-1196.

Canto Sáenz, R. (2011). Gobernanza y Democracia: De Vuelta al Río Turbio de la Política [Governance and Democracy: The Return to the Murky Rivers of Politics]. Gestión y Polí- tica Pública, 21/2, 333-374

Cuadrado-Roura, J.R. and Fernández-Güell, J.M. (2008). Management of Metropolitan Areas: Opportunities and Challenges. In: E. Rojas et al. (Eds.), Governing the Metropolis: Principles and Cases (pp. 263-278). Washington, DC: IADB.

DANE (National Administrative Department of Statistics). Perfil Sociodemográfico 2005- 2015 Total Medellín (Total Sociodemographic Profile 2005-2015 Medellín). Retrieved from: http://www.medellin.gov.co/irj/go/km/docs/wpccontent/Sites/Subportal%20del%20Ciudad ano/Planeaci%C3%B3n%20Municipal/Secciones/Indicadores%20y%20Estad%C3%ADstic as/Documentos/Proyecciones%20de%20poblaci%C3%B3n%202005%20- %202015/Perfil%20Demografico%202005-2015%20Total%20Medellin.pdf

Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística DANE (National Administrative Department of Statistics). Clasificación de Municipios Colombia (Classification of Colom- bia’s Municipalities). Retrieved from http://www.dane.gov.co/estratificacion/images/a/ad/ClasificacionMunicipiosV12_.pdf

Departamento de Geología Universidad EAFIT. (2010) El Impacto Humano. In: Hermelin Arbaux, M., Echeverri Restrepo, A., and Giraldo Ramírez, J. (eds.), Medellín, Urbanismo, Medio Ambiente Sociedad (pp. 49-72). Medellín: Fondo Editorial Universidad EAFIT.

Edelenbos, J. Schie, N van. & Gerrits, L (2010). Organizing Interfaces Between Govern- ment Institutions and Interactive Governance. Policy Sciences, 43/1, 73-94.

EDU Medellín (2013a). Propuesta Parque del Río Medellín. Equipo 4, código WJ5. Re- trieved January 13th, 2014 from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/71203153@N06/sets/72157637094137396/

EDU Medellín. [Edu Medellín]. (201b, August 26). Conceptos del jurado del concurso Parque del Río Medellín [Video file]. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMKaOjycm9g

El Colombiano. (2013, August 9) A Segunda Ronda Proyectos Elegidos Parque del Río [Towards a Second Round Elected Projects Parque del Río]. El Colombiano. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from: http://www.elcolombiano.com/BancoConocimiento/A/a_segunda_ronda_proyectos_elegid os_en_parque_del_rio/a_segunda_ronda_proyectos_elegidos_en_parque_del_rio.asp

El Colombiano. (2013, August 10). 4 Propuestas Pintan el Futuro del Parque del Río [4 Proposals Paint the Future of Parque del Río]. El Colombiano. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from: http://www.elcolombiano.com/BancoConocimiento/4/4_propuestas_pintan_el_futuro_parq ue_del_rio/4_propuestas_pintan_el_futuro_parque_del_rio.asp

El Colombiano. (2013, September 10). Parque del Río Apunta a una Concesión a 25 Años [Parque del Río Aims to a 25-year Concession]. El Colombiano. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from: http://www.elcolombiano.com/BancoConocimiento/P/parque_del_rio_apunta_a_una_conce sion_a_25_anos/parque_del_rio_apunta_a_una_concesion_a_25_anos.asp

El Colombiano. (2013, October 31). Jóven Equipo Paisa Ganó Diseño Parque del Río [Young Paisa Team Won Design Parque del Río]. El Colombiano. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from: http://www.elcolombiano.com/BancoConocimiento/J/joven_equipo_paisa_gano_diseno_de l_parque_del_rio/joven_equipo_paisa_gano_diseno_del_parque_del_rio.asp

El Colombiano. (2013, November 3). El Reto es Unir Parque, Río y Vías [The Challenge is to Join Park, River and Roads]. El Colombiano. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from: http://www.elcolombiano.com/BancoConocimiento/E/el_reto_es_unir_parque_rio_y_vias/e l_reto_es_unir_parque_rio_y_vias.asp

El Colombiano. (2013, November 3). El Parque Botánico Invitará a Tardear en el Río [The Botanic Park Will Invite to Spend the Afternoons in the River]. El Colombiano. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from:

http://www.elcolombiano.com/BancoConocimiento/E/el_parque_botanico_invitara_a_tarde ar_en_el_rio/el_parque_botanico_invitara_a_tardear_en_el_rio.asp

El Mundo. (2012, May 31). Aprobado el Plan de Desarrollo de Medellín [Medellín’s Deve- lopment Plan Approved]. El Mundo. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from http://www.elmundo.com/movil/noticia_detalle.php?idx=198516&

El Tiempo. (2013, September 19). En Fase de Retoque, Está el Diseño del Parque del Río Medellín [Parque del Río Medellín in Retouch Phase]. El Tiempo. Retrieved from: http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/medellin/en-fase-de-retoque-esta-diseno-de-parque- del-rio-medellin-_13071370-4

El Tiempo. (2013, September 26). Espacios Verdes en Medellín son Insuficientes [Green Spaces in Medellín are Insufficient]. El Tiempo. Retrieved from: http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/medellin/ARTICULO-WEB- NEW_NOTA_INTERIOR-13083519.html

Enroth, H. (2011). Policy Network Theory. In: M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Governance (pp. 19-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Fagotto, E. & Fung, A. (2006). Empowered Participation in Urban Governance: The Min- neapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program. International Journal of Urban and Re- gional Research, 30/3, 638-655.

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66/(special issue), 66-75.

Gils, van, M. & Klijn, E.H. (2007). Complexity in Decision Making: The Case of the Rot- terdam Harbour Expansion. Planning Theory and Practice, 8/2, 139-159.

González, L.F. (2007). Medellín los Orígenes y la Transición a la Modernidad: Crecimien- to y Modelos Urbanos 1775-1932. Medellín: Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Me- dellín.

Graves, C.W. (1972). Citizen Participation in Metropolitan Planning. Public Administration Review, 32/3, 198-199.

Grimm, N. Faeth, S. Golubiewski, N. Redman, C. Wu, J. Bai, X. Briggs, J. (2008). Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science, 319, 756-760.

Grindle, M. (2008). Good governance: the inflation of an idea (Working Paper No. 10-023) Retrieved from: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4448993/Grindle_GoodGovernance.pdf?sequen ce=1

Innes, J.E. & Booher, D.E. (1999). Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage: Towards a Theory of Collaborative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Associa- tion, 65/1, 9-26.

Institut de Recherche et Débat Sur la Gouvernance- IRG-. (2006). Ambigüedades y Desa- fíos de la Gobernanza en Colombia: Hacia una Visión Diferenciada del Concepto [Ambi- guities and Challenges of Governance in Colombia: Towards a Differentiated Vision of The Concept]. Retrieved from: http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/fr/analyse/fiche-analyse- 236.html

INTA' Community of Competence on Metropolisation- Deltametropool Association. (2013). Interview with Francoise Coupé- Interview # 6 [transcript]. Retrieved from: http://www.intaaivn.org/images/inta/activities/exchange/Roundtables/INBetween/Metropoli ses_Interviews/interviews_PDF/Medellin_AMVA_EN.pdf

Jessop, B. (2000). Governance Failure. In: G. Stoker (Ed.), The New Politics of British Lo- cal Governance (pp: 11-32). Macmillan.

Klink, J. (2008). Recent Perspectives on Metropolitan Organization, Functions and Gov- ernance. In: E. Rojas et al. (Eds.), Governing the Metropolis: Principles and Cases (pp. 77- 129). Washington, DC: IADB. Kooiman, J. Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Mahon, R., and Pullin, R. (2008). Interactive Governance and Governability: An Introduction. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Envi- ronmental Studies, 7/1, 1-11. Launay, C. (2006). Ambigüedades y desafíos de la gobernanza en Colombia: Hacia una visión diferenciada del concepto [Ambiguities and Challenges of Governance in Colombia: Towards a Differentiated Vision of the Concept] Retrieved from: http://www.institut- gouvernance.org/es/analyse/fiche-analyse-357.html

Lefèvre, C. (1998). Metropolitan Government and Governance in Western Countries: A Critical Review. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22/1, 9-25.

Massiris, A. (1999). Ordenamiento territorial: experiencias internacionales y desarrollos conceptuales y legales realizados en Colombia. Perspectiva Geográfica, 4, 3-23. Ministerio del Interior. (2013). Ley de Áreas Metropolitanas. Retrieved from: http://www.mininterior.gov.co/la-institucion/normatividad/ley-1625-de-2013 Osborne, D. & Gaebler, D. (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York, NY: PLUME. Pickering,T. & Minnery, J. (2012). Scale and Public Participation: Issues in Metropolitan Regional Planning. Planning Practice & Research, 27/2, 249-262.

Ramírez Ríos, J. (2011). Historia Crítica De La Planeación Urbana En Colombia. Una Aproximación Interpretativa Desde Los Estudios Sociales De La Ciencia (Critical History

of Urban Planning in Colombia: An Interpretative Approximation from Social Sciences). Unpublished Master Thesis. Universidad Nacional, Bogotá DC, Colombia.

Ramírez, M. (2011). Gobernanza y Legitimidad Democrática. Reflexión Política, 12/23, 124-135.

Rengifo, J. (2012, 23-26 January). Evolución de la Planificación Regional en Colombia: Tendencias y Perspectivas del Desarrollo. Paper presented at the XII International Collo- quium of Geocritics Barcelona. Retrieved from: http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/coloquio2012/actas/04-J-Rengifo.pdf

Riggirozzi, P. (2011). Region, Regionness and Regionalism in Latin America: Towards a New Synthesis. New Political Economy, 17/4, 421-443.

Rodríguez-Acosta, C. & Rosenbaum, A. (2005) Local Government and the Governance of Metropolitan Areas in Latin America. Public Administration and Development, 25, 295- 306. Savitch, H.V. & Vogel, R.K. (2002) Introduction: Paths to New Regionalism. State and Local Government Review, 32/3, 158-168. Scharpf, F.W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schnitter, P (2005). Construcción Fragmentaria, Característica Del Crecimiento Metropoli- tano De La Ciudad De Medellín, Colombia Lectura Cartográfica De Tres Momentos Signi- ficativos. Scripta Nova, 9/194(103), Retrieved from: http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-194- 103.htm

Skyscraper City. Las Mejores Panorámicas de tu Ciudad. Retrieved on December 30, 2012 from: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=252329&page=214

Sociedad Colombiana de Arquitectos SCA. (2013). Concurso de diseño paisajístico, urba- nístico y arquitectónico Parque del Río Medellín. Retrieved from http://www.sociedadcolombianadearquitectos.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&vie w=article&id=324&Itemid=225

Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2009). Making Governance Networks Effective and Democratic Through Metagovernance. Public Administration, 87/2, 234-258.

Sørensen, E. (2013). Institutionalizing Interactive Governance for Democracy. Critical Pol- icy Studies, 7/1, 72-86. Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as Theory: Five Propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50/155, 17-28.

The World Bank. (1992). Governance and Development. Washington DC: The World Bank. Retrieved from http: www- wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1999/09/17/000178830 _98101911081228/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf Teisman, G. (2000). Models for Research Into Decision-Making Processes: On Phases, Streams and Decision-Making Rounds. Public Administration, 78/4, 937-956.

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Meetings Attended

Where: Estación Ferrocarril de Antioquia When: October 30th 10:30am, Medellín, Colombia What: Public hearing for presentation of contest winner Who: Principal speakers Dr. Aníbal Gaviria C- Mayor of Medellín Dr. Antonio Vargas D- Project Bureau Manager Parque del Río Medellín Dr. Jorge Pérez J- Medellín’s Planning Director (DAP) Dr. Luis Fernando Arbeláez- Urbanist and jury of contest Dr. Sebastián Monsalve- Project design winner

APPENDIXES

Appendix A: Interviews

Date Code Function Organization

November 5, R1P Project Bureau Manager EDU 2013

November 8, R2C Academic Coordinator LCV “La Ciudad Verde” (“The 2013 Green City”)

November 15, R3C Technical Assistant Coordinator VCPD Veeduría Ciudadana al Plan 2013 Committee de Desarrollo (Citizen Oversight Body to the Development Plan)

November 18, R4P Social Coordinator Project Bu- EDU 2013 reau Parque del Río Medellín

November 19, R5C General Coordinator MCV “Medellín Cómo Vamos” 2013 (“Medellín How are we Doing”)

November 25, R6C President CTP Concejo Territorial de Planea- 2013 ción de Medellín (Medellín’s Territo- rial Planning Council)

November 27, R7P Planning Director DAP Departamento Administrativo 2013 de Planeación (Medellín’s Planning Department)

December 9, R8C Planning Sub-director AMVA Área Metropolitana del Valle 2013 de Aburrá (Metropolitan Area Aburrá Valley)

Interviews (R= responder; P= public sector; C= civil society)

Appendix B: Coding (for more details, please refer to section 1.4)

Original Coding Coding after groupings - Problems - Problem/goals/changes in actors - Goals - Degree of influence/interests/resources - Decision-making - Decision-making/role of the mayor/political inter- - Degree of influence ests/continuity of the Project - Interests - Citizen participation - Resources - Regulations/voids - Changes in actors - Other: urban planning in Medellín - Citizen participation - Political interests - Role of the mayor - Continuity of Project - Regulations - Other: urban planning in Medellín