Patterns of self-organization in the context of urban planning: Reconsidering venues of participation

Abstract

This article unpacks the relations that exist between the planning institution and urban residents by examining processes of self-organization in planning. Approaching self-organization with the lens of assemblage, the article proposes three categories or patterns of self-organization of different urban actors and portrays how they act in different forms to induce urban change. The three self-organization categories are as follows: (1) self-organization by the disenfranchised for basic rights, (2) self-organization by the ordinary for community interests, and (3) self-organization by the powerful for economic gains. In these different forms of self-organization, power and agency are differentially constituted by the relations between the residents, the planning institution, and the physical space. Moreover, the impacts of these actions on the urban space vary. Nevertheless, there are also some resemblances between groups and actions that are commonly dissociated. Unpacking different manifestations of self-organization in urban planning proposes a more relational interpretation that emphasizes the inextricable and overlapping relations of formal and informal planning and of top-down and bottom-up planning, and surfaces a different understanding of urban power relations.

Strategies of self-organising communities in a gentrifying city

“…However, community groups have uneven abilities to develop discursive and material support networks, which means that groups that would benefit from opportunities to gain social capital through community organising might be excluded (Ghose and Pettygrove, 2014b; Smith and Kurtz, 2003). This strand of research on community gardens aligns with wider debates in the literature on self-organisation and participatory democracy in which research has found that seemingly empowering mechanisms for self-advocacy amplify, rather than even out, social inequalities (Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Eizenberg, 2018; Swyngedouw, 2005; Van Holstein, 2018).…”

“…Uitermark (2015) calls for research that recognises the potential of self-organisation and is critical of the uneven politics that promote it. Concurrently, Eizenberg (2018) offers insight into the multiple objectives of self-organisation and how it can advance the interests of the disenfranchised and the privileged. The work presented in this paper shows that the process of gentrification creates extra tensions.…”

“…Network theory is sensitive to both structure and agency. It offers opportunities for understanding self-organising community projects as materialising through the tensions between bottom-up initiative and top-down control (Eizenberg, 2018). In this approach, community gardens are understood as internalising pressures in their environments and as constantly developing new gardening practices, resource management approaches and strategic alliances in response to constraints and threats (Egerer and Fairbairn, 2018; Ghose and Pettygrove, 2014a).…”

“…Eizenberg and Fenster, 2015). The agency of gardeners should thus be understood as ‘part of, and mutually constituted by, the complex and many times inconsistent relations between actors’ (such as planning institutions, sponsors, neighbours and gardeners) (Eizenberg, 2018: 7). Inconsistent because local governments might mobilise community gardens to promote multiple strategic and sometimes incompatible objectives such as fostering community cohesion, promoting sustainability, attracting capital, and facilitating cost-effective maintenance of public spaces (Eizenberg and Fenster, 2015; Ernwein, 2017; Rosol, 2012).…”

A New Conceptual Framework for Understanding Displacement: Bridging the Gaps in Displacement Literature between the Global South and the Global North

“…Common channels include turning to the court, submitting petitions, and conducting meetings with various municipal workers (Islam and Sakizlioglu 2015; Bhan 2009; Jabareen and Switat 2019; Zaman 1996; Newman and Wyly 2006; Chatterjee 2014; Roy 2017). The formation of residents’ associations and alternative housing organizations that fight rent escalation are also considered a form of resistance (Eizenberg 2019; Rodriguez and Di Virgilio 2016; Annunziata and Lees 2016), as are demonstrations (Goodman 1971; Newman and Wyly 2006; Smith 2002; Slater 2006; Förste and Bernt 2018; Naeglar 2012; Bob and Majola 2011; Maiello and Pasquinelli 2015; Bhan 2009; Müller 2015; Silvestre and de Oliveira 2012; Goldman 2011; Roy 2017). In most cases, resistance will be practiced through more than one channel.…”