Participatory planning today faces a dual challenge—the growing diversity and differences at the community level and the limitations of institutionalized participation. By comparing two cases of community planning in Seattle, Washington, and Matsudo, Japan, this article examines the role of informal processes in overcoming institutional and social barriers and negotiating differences of identities, values, and interests. The article argues that, through animated interactions, building of trust, experiential learning, and spontaneity, informal activities and processes can serve as important vehicles for creating meanings, social relationships, and collective actions and enable planners to navigate the cultural and political terrain of community differences.
Adams, E. and I. Kinoshita , eds. 2000. Machi-work: Education for participation . Tokyo: Fudosya.
2.
Alinsky, S.1971. Rules for radicals. New York: Random House.
3.
Bollens, S.A.2002. Urban planning and intergroup conflict: Confronting a fractured public interest. Journal of the American Planning Association68 (1): 22-42.
4.
Booher, D.E., and J.E. Innes.2002. Network power in collaborative planning . Journal of Planning Education and Research21:221-36.
5.
Briggs, X.1998. Doing democracy up-close: Culture, power, and communication in community building. Journal of Planning Education and Research18:1-13.
6.
Building and Planning Research Foundation, ed. 2001. Building Cultural Diversity Through Participation Proceedings . Taipei: Council of Cultural Affairs .
7.
Burayidi, M.A.2000. Urban planning as a multicultural canon. In Urban planning in a multicultural society, edited by M. A. Burayidi, 1-14. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
8.
Castells, M.1997. The power of identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
9.
Chang, G.H.2001. Asian Americans and politics: Some perspectives from history . In Asian Americans and politics: Perspectives, experiences, prospects, edited by G. H. Chang, 13-38. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.
Chin, D.2001. Seattle's International District: The making of a Pan-Asian American community. Seattle: International Examiner Press.
11.
Clarke, P.W.2005. The ideal of community and its counterfeit construction . Journal of Architectural Education58 (3): 43-52.
12.
Cooke, B., and U. Kothari.2001. The case for participation as tyranny . In Participation: The new tyranny? edited by B. Cooke and U. Kothari, 1-15. London : Zed Books.
13.
Davidoff, P.1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners31 (4): 331-38.
14.
Day, D.1997. Citizen participation in the planning process: An essentially contested concept?Journal of Planning Literature11 (3): 421-34.
15.
Diers, J.2005a. Neighbor power: Building community the Seattle way. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
16.
_____. 2005b. Seattle's neighborhood planning program: Redefining the comprehensive plan through community-driven planning. In International community planning forum papers and abstracts, 443-53. Taipei, Taiwan, October 30-November 1.
17.
Espiritu, Y.L.1992. Asian American panethnicity: Bridging institutions and identities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
18.
Ferguson, R.F., and W.T. Dickens.1999. Introduction. In Urban problems and community development, edited by R. F. Ferguson and W. T. Dickens, 1-31. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
19.
Fisher, R., and J. Kling.1993. Introduction: The continued vitality of community mobilization. In Mobilizing the community: Local politics in the era of the global city, edited by R. Fisher and J. Kling, xi-xxiii.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
Francis, M.1999. Proactive practice: Visionary thought and participatory action in environmental design, Places (12) 2: 60-68.
21.
Gittell, M.1980. Limits to citizen participation: The decline of community organizations. Beverly Hills/London : Sage.
22.
Gittell, R., and A. Vidal.1998. Community organizing: Building social capital as a development strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Han, C-S.2002. Judge orders “Save Lane Street” to pay legal fees to city and Uwajimaya. International Examiner29 (3), February 6-February 19.
24.
Hall, P.1996. Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century. Updated Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
25.
Hester, R.T., Jr. 1984. Planning neighborhood space with people. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
26.
_____. 1987. Landstyles and lifescapes: 12 steps to community development . Landscape Architecture75 (1):78-85.
27.
_____. 1990. Community design primer. Mendocino, CA: Ridge Times Press.
28.
_____. 1999. A refrain with a view. Places (12) 2: 12-25.
29.
Hester, R. T., and C. Kweskin , eds. 1999. Democratic design in the Pacific Rim: Japan, Taiwan and the United States. Mendocino, CA: RidgeTimes Press.
30.
Hibbard, M., and S. Lurie.2000. Saving land but losing ground: Challenges to community planning in the era of participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research20:187-95.
31.
Hillier, J.1998. Beyond confused noise: Ideas toward communicative procedural justice. Journal of Planning Education and Research18:14-24.
32.
Horton, J.1995. The politics of diversity: Immigration, resistance, and change in Monterey Park, California. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
33.
Hou, J., and A. Tanner.2002. Constructed identities and contested space in Seattle's Chinatown-International District. CELA 2002 conference proceedings. Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture conference. SUNY, Syracuse, New York. September 25-27.
34.
Hou, J., M. Francis, and N. Brightbill.2005. (Re)constructing communities: Design participation in the face of change. Center for Design Research, University of California, Davis.
35.
Hozumi, N.1900. Goningumi Seido Ron (Rationale of Goningumi Institution) . Tokyo: Yuhikaku Shobo.
36.
Huxley, M., and O. Yiftachel.2000. New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research19:333-42.
37.
Kinoshita, I., and O. Nakamura.1997. A study on characteristics of open space constructed by the urban renewal project in Japan. City Planning Institute of Japan, International Symposium on City Planning Proceedings, 89-98.
38.
Kitano, H.H.L., and R. Daniels.1988. Asian Americans: Emerging minorities . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
39.
Lane, M.B.2003. Participation, decentralization and civil society: Indigenous rights and democracy in environmental planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research22:360-73.
40.
Lao, B. n.d. A brief history of the Chinatown International District. Unpublished manuscript.
41.
Larsen, L., S.L. Harlan, B. Bolin, E.J. Hackett, D. Hope, A. Kirby, A. Nelson, T.R. Rex, and S. Wolf.2004. Bonding and bridging: Understanding the relationship between social capital and civic action. Journal of Planning Education and Research24:66-77.
42.
Lowry, K., P. Adler, and N. Milner.1997. Participating the public: Group process, politics, and planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research16:177-87.
43.
Mayo, M.2000. Cultures, communities, identities: Cultural strategies for participation and empowerment. New York: Palgrave.
44.
Medoff, P., and H. Sklar.1994. Streets of hope: The fall and rise of an urban neighborhood. Cambridge, MA: South End.
45.
Miraftab, F.2003. The perils of participatory discourse: Housing policy in postapartheid South Africa. Journal of Planning Education and Research22:226-39.
46.
Nagahashi, T., S. Sugita , N. Kimura, eds. 2004 . Democratic design in the Pacific Rim 1999: United States, Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong. Kyoto, Japan: Tadasu Shobo.
47.
Nawata, K.1998. Legal rationale of community. Tokyo : Sobunsha.
48.
Portes, A.1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology24:1-24.
49.
Qadeer, M.A.1997. Pluralistic planning for multicultural cities: The Canadian practice. Journal of the American Planning Association63 (4): 481-94.
50.
Sahd, B.2004. Community development corporations and social capital: Lessons from the South Bronx. In Community-based organizations: The intersection of social capital and local context in contemporary urban society, edited by R. M. Silverman, 85-124. Detroit : Wayne State University Press.
51.
Sampson, R.J.1999. What “community” supplies. In Urban problems and community development, edited by R. F. Ferguson and W. T. Dickens, 241-292. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Sanoff, H.1979. Design games. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann.
54.
______. 1992. Integrating programming, evaluation and participation: A through Z approach. Brookfield, Vermont: Avebury.
55.
______. 2000. Community participation methods in design and planning . New York: John Wiley.
56.
Santos, B.2002. Hum bows, not hot dog! Memoirs of a savvy Asian American activist. Seattle, WA: International Examiner Press.
57.
Schaller, S., and G. Modan.2005. Contesting public space and citizenship: Implications for neighborhood business improvement districts. Journal of Planning Education and Research24: 394-407.
58.
Silverman, R.M.2004. Introduction: Social capital and community development . In Community-based organizations: The intersection of social capital and local context in contemporary urban society, edited by R. M. Silverman, 1-15. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
59.
Stoecker, R.1997. The CDC model of urban redevelopment: A critique and an alternative. Journal of Urban Affairs19 (1):1-22.
60.
Tauxe, C.S.1995. Marginalizing public participation in local planning: An ethnographic account. Journal of the American Planning Association61 (4): 471-82.
61.
Umemoto, K.2001. Walking in another's shoes: Epistemological challenges in participatory planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research21:17-31.
62.
U.S. Census Bureau.2000. Census data for Washington state, King County: Tracts 90, 91, 92 and 93, from summary file 1, matrices pct4, pct5, pct6, pct7, pct8, pct9, and pct10.
63.
Wei, W.1993. The Asian American movement. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
64.
Young, I.M.1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
