Suchergebnisse

In dealing with the topic of "governing the future", it is fundamental to understand how different practices define justice in content as well as in processual sense. Premises of justification can be seen as essential indicators of the future direction of societal decision-making in governance networks, as well as in determining whose realities play a part when defining future imaginaries. We are dealing with a complex entity and we need to ask whether a future as such can be distinguished from how it is produced in different governing practices? I would also like to emphasize that the concept of 'governance' needs to be taken under careful scrutiny. Governance has not replaced government, as most often both of these management logics are present simultaneously. This is creating tensions within the public sector. My comments to the issues presented in Rhys Jones' article (in this issue) are grounded in planning theory and my ongoing research concerning justification of new spatial planning practices in the Nordic countries.

In this article the arrangements for the participatory planning of the five largest Finnish cities are examined from the perspectives of both democracy and planning theories. Four paradigms that form the continuum of general planning theoretical debate are identified as being relevant in the Finnish context: comprehensive-rationalistic, incrementalist, consensus-oriented communicative and conflict-oriented agonistic planning theory. These are discussed in relation to the parallel development of democracy theory: from the aggregative to the deliberative and further to the agonistic model of democracy. The empirical study reveals that while each paradigm shift in theory purports to replace the former theory with a new one, in practice the new theory emerges as a new addition to the palette of coexisting theoretical sources, to be drawn upon as a source of guidance and inspiration in organizing participatory planning. The five Finnish cities combine traits of different theories in their arrangements of planning participation, often in a fashion that generates institutional ambiguity. The argument concludes with discussing the necessity of further empirical and developmental research, where the contexts of both planning theory and democracy theory are related to the institutional challenges of planning conduct. If this does not happen the emerging agonistic planning theory, too, may become a paradigm shift at the level of theory only, thereby contributing to the widening gap between theory and practice.

"Urban planning and development are a meeting ground for different experiences and interpretations pertaining to the desireable city, and the ways in which citizens should genuinely be able to participate in the process. This multidisciplinary book explores broadly the question of how to best approach participation today. Instead of aiming at a singular interpretation, the book sets out to develop tools for a better understanding of the different logics behind urban development and citizen participation. The authors explore themes ranging from governmental structures and settings all the way to individual lifeworlds and experiences, and provide several well-founded propositions on what participation is about.

The articles give voice to actors from the public sphere, from the third and fourth sectors, as well as to citizens in different social roles and positions. The book serves as a text book in disciplines related to urban development and participation, and as an information source for professionals and citizens interested in the topic." - "Kaupunkien kehittämisessä ja suunnittelussa kohtaavat erilaiset kokemukset ja tulkinnat hyvästä kaupungista sekä tavoista, joilla kansalaiset voivat olla prosessissa aidosti mukana. Tässä monitieteisessä teoksessa pohditaan miten osallistumista ja osallisuutta olisi tänä päivänä mielekästä lähestyä. Teoksessa ei tavoitella yhtä oikeaa tulkintaa, vaan luodaan välineitä ymmärtää kansalaisosallistumisen ja kaupunkikehityksen monitahoista logiikkaa. Kirjoittajat tarkastelevat teemoja hallinnon institutionaalisista rakenteista aina yksittäisen ihmisen kokemusmaailmaan saakka ja pohtivat monipuolisesti, mitä osallistuminen ja osallisuus lopulta ovat.
Äänensä tuovat esille niin julkishallinnon toimijat, kolmannen ja neljännen sektorin aktivistit kuin erilaisissa yhteiskunnallisissa asemissa olevat asukkaatkin. Teos on tarkoitettu oppikirjaksi eri tieteenaloille sekä tietolähteeksi osallistumisen kysymysten kanssa työskenteleville ja kaupunkien kehittämisestä kiinnostuneille kansalaisille."

Urban strategies, representing stories of possible futures, often intervene in already established local communities and therefore call for a considerate urban intervention. This article utilises the ideas of Henri Lefebvre's socially produced space and of literature on stories involved in planning. Our empirical example tells a story of urban densification aspirations for an inner-city neighbourhood in Tampere, Finland. By combining the interviews of local people and planners with policy documents, we argue that planners' stories pay too little attention to the place and to local stories. Planners' abstract visions of the future and local stories building on lived experiences both draw meanings from the same place but have very different intentions. In our case, the consultation of the project started out wrong because the planners neglected a neighbourhood thick in symbolic meanings and the local stories' power in resistance. By understanding the place as polyphonic in its foundation, planners could learn about the symbolic elements and reasons for people's place attachment, and thus end up re-writing the place together. Urban interventions such as urban densification should connect to the place as part of its polyphonic historical continuum and acknowledge the residents' place attachments.