1) Describing a place and a context, imagined or existing. 2) Communicating a vision. 3) Implementation. At every level, there is a triangular relationship between the planner, the place (imagined or existing) and the audience. The plan gives form to the place so that the audience can relate to it. In the act of giving form, which is really a the planner already communicative act, expresses perspective, values and preferences. Because it is a communicative act, the plan must speak a language that is recognisable by the audience and provide an acceptable narrative. Without effective communication, the collective sense of purpose and direction required for the execution of any plan happen. The relationship between the planner doesn’t and the audience largely determines the mode of expression of the plan. For instance, an advocate sharing an idea with residents will use a different language than a project designer presenting to investors. Clearly, the mode of communication can exclude as much as it can include. The challenge of participatory planning is to turn the audience into planners. This happens when participants become not only of information but also producers diffusers (“informers”), and of information. At first sight, it appears that at the scale of a neighbourhood it is users simply impossible to turn everyone into a planner. This proposition sounds hugely utopian until we realize that in many ways, people who live and/or work in a place do –the “users” – contribute constantly to producing it. Michele de (1984) Practice of Everyday Life Certeau’s is essentially a study of how users give form and thus meaning to the places they (“enform”) inhabit. Participatory planning can therefore be defined as a methodology to turn participants into meaning, producers of forms some cases, it suffices to recognize how “enformers”, –in people are already active participants in urban planning. The produced in that way forms range from immaterial social and cultural patterns to more physical aspects of the neighbourhood. They are necessarily relational and therefore never fixed in time and space. This last remark is explored in detail in the next chapter. Actors in the planning process
1) Describing a place and a context, imagined or existing. 2) Communicating a vision. 3) Implementation. At every level, there is a triangular relationship between the planner, the place (imagined or existing) and the audience. The plan gives form to the place so that the audience can relate to it. In the act of giving form, which is really a communicative act, the planner already expresses perspective, values and preferences. Because it is a communicative act, the plan must speak a language that is recognisable by the audience and provide an acceptable narrative. Without effective communication, the collective sense of purpose and direction required for the execution of any plan doesn’t happen. The relationship between the planner and the audience largely determines the mode of expression of the plan. For instance, an advocate sharing an idea with residents will use a different language than a project designer presenting to investors. Clearly, the mode of communication can exclude as much as it can include. The challenge of participatory planning is to turn the audience into planners. This happens when participants become not only producers of information (“informers”), but also diffusers and users of information. At first sight, it appears that at the scale of a neighbourhood it is simply impossible to turn everyone into a planner. This proposition sounds hugely utopian until we realize that in many ways, people who live and/or work in a place –the “users” – do contribute constantly to producing it. Michele de Certeau’s Practice of Everyday Life (1984) is essentially a study of how users give form (“enform”) and thus meaning to the places they inhabit. Participatory planning can therefore be defined as a methodology to turn participants into “enformers”, meaning, producers of forms –in some cases, it suffices to recognize how people are already active participants in urban planning. The forms produced in that way range from immaterial social and cultural patterns to more physical aspects of the neighbourhood. They are necessarily relational and therefore never fixed in time and space. This last remark is explored in detail in the next chapter. Actors in the planning process