UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Planners’ role in accommodating citizen disagreement The case of Dutch urban planning Özdemir, E.; Tasan-Kok, T. DOI 10.1177/0042098017726738 Publication date 2019 Document Version Final published version Published in Urban Studies License CC BY-NC Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Özdemir, E., & Tasan-Kok, T. (2019). Planners’ role in accommodating citizen disagreement: The case of Dutch urban planning. Urban Studies, 56(4), 741-759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017726738 General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:28 Sep 2021 Article Urban Studies 2019, Vol. 56(4) 741–759 Planners’ role in accommodating Ó Urban Studies Journal Limited 2017 Article reuse guidelines: citizen disagreement: The case of sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0042098017726738 Dutch urban planning journals.sagepub.com/home/usj Esin O¨ zdemir Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Tuna Tasan-Kok Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands; and Department of Human Geography, Planning and International Development, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands Abstract Citizen disagreement on urban policies and planning decisions is both ubiquitous and fundamental to democracy. Post-political debates debunk the ‘consensus approach’, which is grounded in Habermasian communication theory, for circumventing disagreement. This article presents a counter argument. Our analysis of the highly institutionalised and consensus-oriented Dutch plan- ning framework shows that this system does not necessarily prevent effective voicing of disagree- ment. The empirical material demonstrates that consensus is not a pre-defined and static outcome but a dynamic and sensitive process in which urban planning is an instrument. We con- clude that planners could facilitate consensus through accommodative roles that address dis- agreement by taking an adaptive, proactive and more human stance. Keywords citizen disagreement, consensus, Dutch urban planning, post-politics, urban planners ᪈㾱 ൘≁ѫ⽮Պѝˈޜ≁ሩ෾ᐲ᭯ㆆ઼㿴ࡂߣㆆⲴᔲ㿱Პ䙽ᆈ൘ˈҏᱟ≁ѫⲴṩᵜ⢩ᖱDŽสҾ ૸䍍傜ᯟ⋏䙊⨶䇪ⲴĀޡ䇶ѻ䚃ā᜿൘㿴䚯ᔲ㿱˗ਾ᭯⋫ᆖ䈤᨝クҶަ䶒㓡DŽᵜ᮷ᨀࠪҶ ањ৽䶒㿲⛩DŽᡁԜ࠶᷀Ҷ儈ᓖࡦᓖॆᒦԕޡ䇶ѪሬੁⲴ㦧ޠ㿴ࡂփ㌫ˈ㺘᰾Ҷ䘉аփ㌫ ᒦнᗵ❦䱫→ᔲ㿱Ⲵᴹ᭸ਁ༠DŽ㓿傼⹄ウ䇱᰾ˈޡ䇶ᒦнᱟа⿽亴ᇊⲴǃ䶉ᘱⲴ㔃ᶴˈ㘼 ᱟа⿽ࣘᘱⲴ᭿ᝏ䗷〻ˈ෾ᐲ㿴ࡂᱟ䗮ᡀޡ䇶Ⲵањ᡻⇥DŽᡁԜᗇࠪ㔃䇪˖㿴ࡂ㘵ਟ䙊䗷 䇶DŽޡ䘋׳䟷ਆ䈳䘲ǃѫࣘǃᴤӪᙗⲴုᘱᶕ༴⨶ᔲ㿱ˈӾ㘼ਁᥕॿ䈳Ⲵ֌⭘ˈԕ↔ᶕ ޣ䭞䇽 ޜ≁ᔲ㿱ǃޡ䇶ǃ㦧ޠ෾ᐲ㿴ࡂǃਾ᭯⋫ǃ෾ᐲ㿴ࡂ㘵 Corresponding author: Esin O¨ zdemir, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Received January 2016; accepted July 2017 Architecture and the Built Environment, OTB – Research for the Built Environment, Julianalaan 134, Delft 2628 BL, Netherlands. Email: [email protected] 742 Urban Studies 56(4) Introduction 2009; Mayer, 2009; Nicholls and Vermeulen, 2012; Purcell, 2002, 2013); or through gov- Intellectuals, activists and progressive citi- ernance and participatory mechanisms (e.g. zens are increasingly concerned about how Beaumont and Nicholls, 2008; Pierre, 2005; ‘democracy’ is practised at different scales Uitermark and Duyvendak, 2008). Other and in different contexts. Their discontent is studies assess the roles of policy-makers, expressed as a crisis of representative democ- implementers and planners, particularly racy in its participatory/deliberative forms, managerial and technical tasks in adminis- the democratic deficit, the erosion of democ- tration, coordination, facilitation, negotia- racy, or something similar. It comes to a tion and conflict resolution (Albrechts, 1991; head in the city, a nexus of exclusionary Breheny and Low, 1995; Clifford and urban policies and practices leading to a Tewdwr-Jones, 2013; Forester, 1989, 2009, process that Harvey calls accumulation by 2013; Fox-Rogers and Murphy, 2015; Udy, dispossession, which mainly affects lower- 1994). Some authors call for political income groups. engagement to put structural issues on the This article enquires whether contempo- agenda (Albrechts, 1991, 2010) and to raise rary urban planning processes are deepening political awareness among planners the democratic deficit. The literature concep- (Grange, 2012). tualises the crisis of representative democracy While the scope of the discussion is as ‘post-politics’ and the various forms of widening, the post-political literature, not- depoliticisation and exclusion it entails as withstanding its insightfulness and critical ‘post-political’ (Mouffe, 1999, 2005; energy, remains theoretical and philosophi- ˇ Rancie` re, 2004a, 2004b, 2010; Zizˇek, 1999). cal. It has been insufficiently infused with The consensus approach has been disparaged empirical material detailing cases in which as a tool for taming people, accused of long and cumbersome planning processes strengthening established agendas and giving are deadlocked because of a lack of consen- them a pseudo-democratic look, whereby dis- sus. That literature often overlooks the agreements are neither heard nor accommo- potential of consensus-seeking and the dated but rather circumvented or ignored. agency of planners. Going against the grain, Consensus-building approaches in urban pol- an emergent literature calls for a rehabilita- icy and planning are criticised for excluding tion of the ‘political’ in urban policy and and marginalising contestation and conflict, planning and more room for agency but also for lending itself to neoliberal instru- (Gualini, 2015). This could invoke ‘politics mentalisation, which leads to exclusionary by other means’ such as direct action or civil practices (Bengs, 2005; Fainstein, 2000; disobedience and facilitating public dispute Flyvbjerg, 1998; Gunton et al., 2006; Harris, (Metzger, 2011). Although some studies 2002; Purcell, 2009; Swyngedouw, 2005). focus on planners’ roles, few have connected There is a large body of literature on how consensus-building to the ‘human’ aspects of citizens express disagreement: through urban their role performance. movements (e.g. Arampatzi and Nicholls, The article proposes a constructive 2012; Castells, 1977, 1983, 1996; Fainstein approach to consensus-building, based on and Fainstein, 1985; Mayer, 2000; Miller the precept of planning as an instrument for and Nicholls, 2013; O¨zdemir and Eraydin, actual democracy. The planner is perceived 2017; Pickvance, 1976, 2003; Pruijt, 2003; as a human being, is situated in a consensus- Uitermark, 2004); claiming their right to the building context and understood in terms of city (e.g. Harvey, 2003, 2008; Marcuse, how s/he responds to disagreement. The O¨ zdemir and Tasan-Kok 743 research questions expand upon that propo- exclusionary (Hillier, 2003; Hoekveld and sition: How can contemporary urban plan- Needham, 2013). In Swyngedouw’s (2014: ning practice accommodate citizen 181) words, intervention ‘enables the forma- disagreement? What are the roles and posi- tion of certain socio-ecological assemblages tions of urban planners vis-a` -vis disagree- and closes down others’. The literature fore- ment? From a post-political point of view, grounds instances when planners have been planners would be expected to adopt a disaccommodative (see Attuyer, 2015; technocratic-managerial stance in the pur- Martı´nez, 2011; Rannila and Loivaranta, suit of consensus, whereby the ‘powerful’ 2015). Our aim is to show that they can be would prevail in any dispute. But this is not accommodative in a consensus-based plan- necessarily so; ‘consensus-building’ is shown ning system. to be a dynamic, context-dependent process. Disagreement in the Netherlands is less The study presents empirical material from about material needs than lived experiences the Dutch planning experience to demon- (MacLeod and McFarlane, 2014). Among the strate that a consensus-building approach prevailing issues are sustainable production, can accommodate disagreements. The deci- clean air, growing your own food, local pro- sive factor is agency: urban planners would duction and communities. Since they reflect have to step outside the boundaries of their discontent rather than deprivation, disagree- technocratic role and create alternative ment rarely leads to serious conflict. Some channels for public involvement. Consensus might consider the experiences documented is then an ongoing pursuit: it is sought during our fieldwork trivial compared with through non-formal and non-regulated, planning disputes in Israel, Turkey, Brazil or often spontaneous and egalitarian interac- elsewhere, where disagreements can lead to tion among experts and citizens. serious social turmoil. However, in the Dutch Our qualitative research took place from context they are important. Furthermore, February to September 2015. We conducted once configured at a conceptual level,