Share:


Challenges of civic engagement in the (post-socialist) transitional society: experiences from waterfront urban areas Mezapark in Riga and Kalarand in Tallinn

Abstract

Current case studies examine the shortcomings of civic engagement strategies during the design process and ratification of detailed plans for urban areas of strategic importance − Mezapark in Riga and Kalarand in Tallinn. Detailed plans caused public outcries and led to long-lasting and distressful negotiations between local communities, developers, designers and municipalities over the future development and use of these areas. The debates about detailed plans raised an increasing public interest in planning related issues and growing demands for greater civic engagement in decisions shaping the city. At the same time, the debates demonstrated the inability of local planning frameworks to meet public expectations. There appears a salient need for changing the planning culture. This paper studies the shortcomings of civic engagement strategies and the desirable changes through a series of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders involved and the analysis of planning related documentation.

Keyword : civic engagement, conflict, Kalarand, Mezapark, planning, public space

How to Cite
Prilenska, V., Paadam, K., & Liias, R. (2020). Challenges of civic engagement in the (post-socialist) transitional society: experiences from waterfront urban areas Mezapark in Riga and Kalarand in Tallinn. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 44(2), 109-121. https://doi.org/10.3846/jau.2020.12223
Published in Issue
Sep 21, 2020
Abstract Views
280
PDF Downloads
132
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. SAGE Publications.

Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46, 122−136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004

Casini, C. (2017). Citizen engagement for sustainable development of port cities: The public debate about development projects of livorno port. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 10409 LNCS, pp. 416–429). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62407-5_29

Connelly, S. (2006). Looking inside public involvement: How is it made so ineffective and can we change this? Community Development Journal, 41(1), 13–24.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi046

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications.

Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187

Donders, M., Hartmann, T., & Kokx, A. (2014). E-participation in urban planning: Getting and keeping citizens involved. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 3(2), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2014040104

Estonian City of Tallinn. (2017). Statistical yearbook of Tallinn 2017. https://www.tallinn.ee/eng/Statistics-and-yearbooks

Estonian Parliament. (2015). Planning Act. Riigikogu.

Estonian Ruhnu Municipality. (2017). Welcome to Ruhnu! http://ruhnu.ee/en/web/english/english

Faehnle, M., & Tyrvainen, L. (2013). A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy, 34, 332–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.006

Forester, J. (1987). Planning in the face of conflict: Negotiation and mediation strategies in local land use regulation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(3), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368708976450

Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. Anchor Press.

Grupa93. (2013). Kultūras atpūtas parka “Mežaparks” lokālplānojums (Detailed plan). Riga.

Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formations. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 23(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1068/b230217

Hoch, C. J. (2007). Pragmatic communicative action theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(3), 272–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06295029

Hoyle, B. (2000). Confrontation, consultation, cooperation? Community groups and urban change in Canadian port-city. Canadian Geographer, 44(3), 228–243.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2000.tb00706.x

Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 333–342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900402

Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369808975956

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369908976031

Irvin, R., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x

Johnson, I. G., McDonald, A., Briggs, J., Manuel, J., Salt, K., Flynn, E., & Vines, J. (2017). Community Conversational. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems − CHI ’17 (pp. 2320–2333).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025559

King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2011). Interviews in qualitative research. SAGE Publications.

Latvian Cabinet of Ministers. (2014). Noteikumi par pasvaldibu teritorijas attistibas planosanas dokumentiem (No. 628). Latvijas Vestnesis, 215(5275).

Latvian Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs. (2016). Latvijas iedzīvotāju skaits pašvaldībās. Riga.

Latvian Parliament. (2011). Teritorijas attistibas planosanas likums. Latvijas Vestnesis, 173(4571).

Latvian Riga Forests. (2017). Kultūras un atpūtas parka “Mežaparks” vēsturiskie attīstības laikposmi. http://www.rigasmezi.lv/lv/mezaparks/vesture/?doc=7091

Lindmae, M. (2014). Urban waterfront regeneration and public participation. Confrontation or cooperation? The case of Kalarand, Tallinn (unpublished Master thesis). Barcelona, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.

Mason, J. (2007). Qualitative researching. SAGE Publications.

McGovern, S. J. (2013). Ambivalence over participatory planning within a progressive regime. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(3), 310–324.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X13481246

Nienhuis, I., van Dijk, T., & de Roo, G. (2011). Let’s collaborate! But who’s really collaborating? Individual interests as a leitmotiv for urban renewal and regeneration strategies. Planning Theory & Practice, 12(1), 95–109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2011.546671

Paadam, K. (2009). The Baltic countries – Introduction. In A. Holt-Jensen, & E. Pollock (Eds.), Urban sustainability and governance: New challenges in Nordic-Baltic housing policies (pp. 171−177). Nova Science Publishers.

Paadam, K., & Ojamäe, L. (2012). The potential formation of the waterfront area in the vicinity of the future Tallinn City Government building. On assessments and dispositions of the related actor groups. Tallinn University of Technology. https://uuringud.tallinn.ee/uuring/vaata/2012/Tallinna-Linnavalitsuse-uue-hoone-kavandamisest-lahtuv-mereaarse-lahialakujunemine-ja-sellega-seotud-kasutajagruppide-hinnangudja-hoiakud

Pro Kapital. (2016). Kalaranna 1 registered property. Public onestage architectural competition. Terms of reference (unpublished competition rules). Tallinn.

Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. SAGE Publications.

Sager, T. (2012). Reviving critical planning theory: Dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in communicative planning. Routlege. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203104187

Shipley, R., & Utz, S. (2012). Making it count: A review of the value and techniques for public consultation. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1), 22–42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412211413133

Thiel, S.-K., & Frohlich, P. (2017). Gamification as motivation to engage in location-based public participation. In G. Gartner, & H. Huang (Eds.), Progress in Location-Based Services 2016 (pp. 399–421). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47289-8_20

Vayona, A. (2011). Investigating the preferences of individuals in redeveloping waterfronts: The case of the port of Thessaloniki – Greece. Cities, 28(5), 424–432.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.05.007

Wilson, A., Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Comber, R. (2019). Urban planning, public participation and digital technology: App development as a method of generating citizen involvement in local planning process. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 46(2), 286–302.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317712515

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. SAGE Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Design and methods. SAGE Publications.