the forefront, but for the most part, processes are lead by top-level bureaucrats who are often fairly unaccountable to the public. However, for some years now, calls for more direct forms of participation have been rising, not just in urban planning but also in many other aspects of governance. Collaborative planning is now one of the most intensely debated themes in the field of urban planning. Many planning departments have opened up their databases and introduced clauses in their long-term plans that emphasise the role of the public in the planning process. Countries which have long traditions in local governance and public involvement are clearly at an advantage in the implementation of participatory planning processes. But, as urban planning theorist Patsy Healey points out, other governance cultures, such approaches “in come up against some deeply embedded institutional constraints against such collaboration.” (Healey, 2006: 34) This is particularly the case in cities where the stakes are high for various reasons. These usually include high land prices and high population density. In Mumbai and Tokyo, an additional difficulty comes from the fact that many neighbourhoods are mixed-use, which means that large urban plans in dense and valuable areas may not only disturb the character of the neighbourhood and the lifestyle of its residents but also income generation patterns enmeshed in the urban fabric. Moreover, in parts of the world where users have also historically been involved in the construction of their habitat made their own plans for the future the demand for participation may become – particularly pressing and political. In case of conflict between residents and the authorities, some urban planners choose to join force with local populations and use their skills to promote local interests against those of the state. A third type of planner identified by Lynch is the Advocates sometimes advocate planner. defend a particular approach or location, and develop a base around these. This can “client” happen with preservationists for instance who try to mobilize residents to preserve the heritage structures in a given neighbourhood. Advocates can also work for lobbies that push for a specific agenda such as the removal of vendors from a certain street or to promote the construction of a new parking space. They are not necessarily progressive or pro-local. Advocates can also serve business interests or political ambitions. However, advocates typically defend a cause they believe in. The Urban Typhoon workshops in Shimokitazawa and Dharavi were very much advocacy projects.
the forefront, but for the most part, processes are lead by top-level bureaucrats who are often fairly unaccountable to the public. However, for some years now, calls for more direct forms of participation have been rising, not just in urban planning but also in many other aspects of governance. Collaborative planning is now one of the most intensely debated themes in the field of urban planning. Many planning departments have opened up their databases and introduced clauses in their long-term plans that emphasise the role of the public in the planning process. Countries which have long traditions in local governance and public involvement are clearly at an advantage in the implementation of participatory planning processes. But, as urban planning theorist Patsy Healey points out, “in other governance cultures, such approaches come up against some deeply embedded institutional constraints against such collaboration.” (Healey, 2006: 34) This is particularly the case in cities where the stakes are high for various reasons. These usually include high land prices and high population density. In Mumbai and Tokyo, an additional difficulty comes from the fact that many neighbourhoods are mixed-use, which means that large urban plans in dense and valuable areas may not only disturb the character of the neighbourhood and the lifestyle of its residents but also income generation patterns enmeshed in the urban fabric. Moreover, in parts of the world where users have also historically been involved in the construction of their habitat made their own plans for the future – the demand for participation may become particularly pressing and political. In case of conflict between residents and the authorities, some urban planners choose to join force with local populations and use their skills to promote local interests against those of the state. A third type of planner identified by Lynch is the advocate planner. Advocates sometimes defend a particular approach or location, and develop a “client” base around these. This can happen with preservationists for instance who try to mobilize residents to preserve the heritage structures in a given neighbourhood. Advocates can also work for lobbies that push for a specific agenda such as the removal of vendors from a certain street or to promote the construction of a new parking space. They are not necessarily progressive or pro-local. Advocates can also serve business interests or political ambitions. However, advocates typically defend a cause they believe in. The Urban Typhoon workshops in Shimokitazawa and Dharavi were very much advocacy projects.