This article examines the value of local knowledge in the creative phase of planning practice. It uses the case study of an urban renewal project in Antwerp to explore the ways that workshop participants made sense of the planning situation. Analysis of the “talks” identified shared interpretive “frames” employed by the lay participants. The article goes on to discuss how distinctive these were from the professionals’ perspectives and what the consequences were for the material outcomes of the planning process. It was concluded that the public input was used to making adjustments to planning solutions rather than formulating new interpretations of the planning situation itself.
Akin, Ömer. 1986. Psychology of architectural design. London: Pion.
2.
Akin, Ömer. 1990. Necessary conditions for design expertise and creativity. Design Studies11 (2): 107-113.
3.
Archea, John. 1987. Puzzlemaking: What architects do when no one is looking. In Computability of design, ed. Y. E. Kaley.New York: John Wiley.
4.
Burgess, Jacquie, Melanie Limb, and Carolyn M. Harrison. 1988. Exploring environmental values through the medium of small groups: 1. Theory and practice. Environment and Planning A20:309-326.
5.
Campbell, Heather, and Robert Marshall. 2000a. Moral obligations, planning and the public interest: A commentary on current British practice. Environment and Planning B27:297-312.
6.
Campbell, Heather, and Robert Marshall. 2000b. Public involvement and planning: Looking beyond the one to the many. International Planning Studies5 (3): 321-344.
7.
Crewe, Katherine. 2001. The quality of participatory design. The effects of citizen input on the design of the Boston Southwest Corridor. Journal of the American Planning Association67 (4): 437-455.
8.
Cross, Nigel. 2001. Strategic knowledge exercised by outstanding designers. In Strategic knowledge and concept formation, ed. J. Gero and K. Hori.Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney Press.
9.
De Wever, Hardwin, and Ellen Lambert, eds. 2003. Antwerp, Spoor Noord, a city park off the beaten tracks. Gent, Belgium: Ludion.
10.
Enserink, Bert, and R. A. H. Monnikhof. 2000. Impact assessment and public participation: Facilitating co-design by information management. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, 19-23June, in Hong Kong.
11.
Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
Forester, John. 1996. Rationality, dialogue and learning: What community mediators can teach us about the practice of civil society. In Cities for citizens, ed. Michael Douglass and John Friedmann.Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
13.
Forester, John. 1999. The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. London: MIT Press.
14.
Gans, Herbert J.1969. Planning for people, not buildings. Environment and Planning A1:33-46.
15.
Garcia-Mira, Ricardo, Constantino Arce, and José M. Sabucedo. 1997. Perceived quality of neighborhoods in a city in northwest Spain: An individual differences scaling approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology17:243-252.
16.
Gifford, Robert, Donald W. Hine, Werner Muller-Clemm, D’Arcy J. Reynolds, and Kelly T. Shaw. 2000. Decoding modern architecture: A lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons. Environment & Behavior32:163-187.
17.
Greenhalgh, Liz, and Ken Worpole. 1995. Park life, urban parks and social renewal. Gloucester, UK: Comedia.
18.
Greider, T., and L. Garkovitch. 1994. Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology59:1-24.
19.
Groat, Linda. 1982. Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology2:3-22.
Healey, Patsy, and Jean Hillier. 1996. Communicative micropolitics: A story of claims and discourses. International Planning Studies1 (2): 165-184.
22.
Herschberger, Robert. 1988. A study of meaning and architecture. In Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and applications, ed. Jack L. Nasar.New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Hillier, Jean. 2002. Shadows of power: An allegory of prudence in landuse planning. London: Routledge.
24.
Hubbard, Philip. 1994. Professional vs lay tastes in design control—An empirical investigation. Planning Practice and Research9 (3): 271-287.
Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association65 (1): 9-26.
27.
Irwin, Alan. 1995, Citizen science: A study for people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
28.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The savage mind. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
29.
Malbert, Bjorn. 1998. Urban planning participation: Linking practice and theory. Dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
30.
Merton, Robert K., Majorie Fiske, and Patricia L. Kendall. 1990. The focused interview: A manual of problems and procedures. New York: Free Press.
31.
Nasar, Jack L.1999. Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes. In Directions in person-environment research and practice, ed. Jack L. Nasar and W. F. E. Preiser. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
32.
Psathas, George. 1980. Approaches to the study of the world of everyday life. Human Studies3:3-17.
33.
Rittel, H. W.1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences4:155-169.
34.
Sancar, Fahriye H.1993. An integrative approach to public participation and knowledge generation in planning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning26 (1-4): 67-88.
35.
Schön, Donald. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
36.
Schön, Donald, and Martin Rein. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
37.
Steino, Nicolai. 2000. Architecture in planning: An independent rationale or a multi-rationality approach? Manuscript, Aalborg University, Denmark.
38.
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
Uzzell, David L., and K. Lewand. 1989. The psychology of landscape. Landscape Design189:34-35.
40.
Van Herzele, Ann, Kevin Collins, and Liisa Tyrväinen. 2004. Involving people in urban forestry: A discussion of cases throughout Europe. In Urban forests and trees in Europe, ed. Kjell Nilsson, Thomas B. Randrup, and Cecil C. Konijnendijk.New York: Springer.
41.
Van Herzele, Ann, and Torsten Wiedemann, 2003. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning63:109-126.
42.
Wilson, M.1996. The socialization of architectural preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology16:33-44.
43.
Yin, Robert K.1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
