This document discusses the importance of public participation and democratic urbanism for community health and city planning. It provides examples of how inclusive community engagement processes have led to positive placemaking outcomes, such as transforming derelict areas into active public spaces with gardens and cultural assets. Truly collaborative approaches that involve citizens in decision making from the beginning help address issues of apathy and opposition, build social capital, and create places that reflect community values. In contrast, top-down "smart city" projects and an "orgy of public process" can undermine urban democracy and civic empowerment. When cities leverage culture and citizen ideas, remarkable impacts on people and communities are possible.

1. Democratic Urbanism &
The Healthy City
A Healthy City for All: IMCL Conference
Fixing Cities
June20, 2019

2. Greetingsfrom Washington

7. The importance of the 1960s…

8. “Thanks in part to your superb efforts, we
have concrete proof that group facilitation
and group process methodologies yield
significant, measurable results”
“inspiring”…”exceptional”
“A replicable set of values and a process
that can be broadly applied to urban
design and sustainable communities; and
the development of a participatory
culture and applied values that explicitly
recognize the central place of the public in
the design of the built environment.”

9. “The house becomes a body language of democracy, and the grid becomes a
body language of democracy from the ultimate privacy of the individual to the
ultimate public of the grid that you see from the airplane. It tells you
something about community. It tells you something about citizenship. It tells
you about how the city works physically, and how the city works politically,
and how the city works economically, and what the role of citizenship is, and
what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they dropped in the Constitution,
“we, the citizens.” – David Lewis

10. What does the built environment say
about our community health?
Sprawl circles, Lee County, Florida

11. Children do well when families do
well, and families do well when
they live in supportive
neighborhoods.
– Annie E Casey Foundation
Baltimore, MD

12. “The survey assessed health challenges faced
by 2,400 15- to 19-year-olds from
impoverished areas in Baltimore, Shanghai,
Johannesburg, Ibadan and New Delhi, as well
as their perceptions of their environments.
Overall, teenagers in Baltimore and
Johannesburg, despite being located in
comparably wealthy countries, had far worse
health outcomes and tended to perceive their
communities more negatively.”

13. Bridgeport, CT

14. Del Paso Heights, referred to locally as “Del Paso
Freights” or “The Deepest Place in Hell”

15. Fifth Ward, Houston, “the bloody nickel”

16. Skid Row, Los Angeles

17. Martindale Brightwood, Indianapolis

18. Camden, New Jersey

21. Social Capital
“In these programs local residents work alongside civil society organizations to help
strengthen connections, build networks of reciprocity, and think about the needs of the
area. Rather than waiting for assistance from the government, these areas are creating
their own plans for mitigating future crises.”

22. Social Trust

24. Trickle down
urbanism won’t
work

25. The War Against
Christmas NIMBYs
“NIMBYism – not-in-my-backyard–is
rampantin California,sometimes erupting
extemporaneously inresponse to
development proposals,sometimes driven by
misguidedenvironmentalism.” –Sacramento
Bee

26. “Thisseemsobviousenough—newdevelopmentfaces
lessneighborhoodresistancewhentheneighborhoodis
includedintheprocessfromthegit-go.Butthismeans
morethanjustholdingpublichearings,whichare
dominatedbyorganized neighborhoodgroupsasopposed
toaverageresidents.”

27. JimFishkin & the Scienceof P2

28. UniversalValues of P2
IAP2 Core Valuesfor the Practice ofPublicParticipation
• Public participationisbasedonthebeliefthatthosewhoare affectedbyadecision havearighttobeinvolved inthedecision-making
process.
• Public participationincludes thepromisethatthepublic’scontributionwillinfluencethedecision.
• Public participationpromotessustainabledecisionsbyrecognizingand communicatingtheneedsandinterestsofallparticipants,
includingdecisionmakers.
• Public participationseeksoutand facilitatestheinvolvementofthosepotentiallyaffectedby orinterestedin adecision.
• Public participationseeksinputfromparticipantsin designinghowtheyparticipate.
• Public participationprovidesparticipantswiththeinformation theyneedtoparticipatein ameaningfulway.
• Public participationcommunicatestoparticipantshowtheirinputaffectedthedecision.

29. The real issue today: The
Expectations Gap
What GovernmentWants What thePublicWants

30. ICMA Survey onIAP2 Spectrum

31. A failureof democracy
InternationalCity/CountyManagementAssociation(ICMA)Survey

32. What the Data TellsUs
• American Planning Association (2012)– “More than 50percent want to personally
beinvolved in communityplanning efforts, includingmore than half of Democrats,
Republicans, and independents as well as majorities of urban, suburban, and rural
respondents.”
• Bloomberg Philanthropies American Mayors Survey(2018):“While nearly all
mayors engage in informingresidents (e.g. press releases, social media), only 26
percent engage in crowdsourcing new ideas. Comparing the typesof activities cities use
to engage residents, they are most likely to bepassive orexpecting people to react to
something the city has already done. Active engagement, particularly involving citizens
to help solve city problems, is not regularlyadopted by mayors.”
• NationalLeague ofCitiessurvey ofU.S.Cities(2010) - 81 percent use public engagement
processes"often" (60percent)or "sometimes" (21 percent)

33. How Planning Conflicts Get Framed Today
Skeptical?TaketheGoogleChallenge–runasearchon“publicmeetingendsinchaos”oranysimilartermsandyouwillfindaworldofpublic
participationdisastersoccurringallacrossthecountry.

34. Example–NYCWorldTradeCenter
• Listening to the City brought
more than 4,300 people
together on July 2, 2002
• Key problem: Sponsoring
agencies (Lower Manhattan
Development Corporation and
the Port Authority)wanted
feedback on designs, and
public wanted input on design.
(Consult vs. Collaborate)
Outcome: Public rejected all
suggestions.
• The error was in process
design, not urban design. all of
existing designs and sent the entire initiative back to the
drawing board.

35. A CitizenIdea

36. Ifthisis howweare defining “engagement” in a
“Smart City” then we are all in trouble…
• Themajor error inmuch of the “Smart City” movement is in
viewing people as “users” whoexperiencethe urban
environment rather than contributors to it, valuing big data
vs. public participation
• We mustmove beyond treating people as simple
consumersortaxpayers, and allow them tobe citizens

37. Thegroup describes itself as “pro-
growth” and “pro-innovation” but
questions whethera top-down smart
city project by anAmerican tech
behemoth is reallyinthe best
interests of Toronto’s citizens. “This is
a story about governance,not urban
innovation,” Wyliesaid. “Thereis
nothinginnovative about partnering
with a monopoly.”

38. “But the agreement to lure Amazon stirred an
intense debate about the use of public
subsidies to entice wealthy companies, the
rising cost of living in rapidly gentrifying
neighborhoods and the city’s very identity.”

39. “Publicmeetingstakeuphuge amountsof timeandrarelyproduce
anythingof genuinevalue….Theydoapoorjobof expressingthe
viewsof theordinary citizen.”
-ChristopherCabaldon,Mayor,WestSacramento

40. Control the Masses??
“Andrés Duany is souring on what he
sees as excessive, obstructionist
community engagement in urban
planning. At an event last year, the co-
founder of New Urbanism complained of
“an absolute orgy of public process” In
the U.S.: “Basically, we can’t get anything
done.” Is there a place anymore for
bottom-up planning?“

41. The Fight for Urban Democracy Today
autocrats:Public Relations
• Sponsors decide on a courseof action and then
attempt to sell it to the public.
• people can feel manipulated and suspicious
• often hindersthem from thinkingeffectively
about problems and challengesbecause it avoids
exposing themto the full dialogue.
• PR seeks “buy-in”
democrats: Public Participation
• Sponsors engage public on the front end in
dialogue to help understand the pros and cons of
different actions and seek input, consultation,
involvement, collaboration
• Builds common understanding of the issue and
decision by hearingand understandingall
viewpoints and information
• P2 seeks meaningful involvement

42. “Paradoxically,what ismost neededto achieve
Jane Jacobs’s visionisto deployaRobert Moses
strategy—redesigningourstreetsquicklyand
decisivelyforan increasinglyurbanage, this
timecommittedto accommodating population
growth and offeringresidentsmore optionsfor
getting aroundwithout a car.”
What wouldJane Jacobsthinkof this
sentiment????

43. “We have a unique community here.
What works other places won’t
necessarily work here.”
– Every community

44. Sipaulovi Village, Hopi Mesa
Considering Community & Health

47. Community-generated Tasks
What Can YOU do in the next 90 days?
Volunteer My Time
Clean Up/Plant Trees
Promote Helper
Support Local Businesses
Main Street Investment
Planning and Zoning
Continue the Conversation!
If I had 1,000 Volunteers
Clean Up the Town
Clean up the River/Trails & Plant/Landscape
Paint (murals, buildings, sidewalks, bridge)
Support Businesses/Restore or Tear down
buildings

48. CITIZENS!
Leveraging Culture to Empower

50. Fremont Troll, Seattle
When urban democracy expands, cities flourish. The
placemaking outcomes – and the impact on people –
are nothing short of remarkable.

51. From derelict to active

52. 90 gardens across the city
Over 7,000 citizen gardeners

53. Community Voice & Community
Health
Over 5,000 projects

54. The Scaling Effect
• Over 40 international studies confirm that
volunteering can add years to your life. Studies
suggest up to a 22% reduction in mortality rates.
• At the height of this program, over 86K
volunteers across Seattle. One study reported
that 43 percent of the city’s adults volunteered
regularly in the community and 62 percent
participated in at least one neighborhood group
as a result of these efforts.

55. Today: NIMBYMythmaking

56. Myth: People are Apathetic
Truth: People are hungry for
meaningful involvement

57. Indianapolis

61. Outcomes

62. “You gave us hope. Back in 1992, your ideas seemed
like dreams. Now we are living those dreams.”
– Rick Smith, San Angelo Times-Standard, 2012

63. Portland Pearl District R/UDAT (1983)

65. “Ever squinted your eyes and tried to imagine something that’s
only in your head? That’s how it was for those of us who looked
over the rail yards and abandoned warehouses of inner
northwest Portland some 20 years ago. Rundown and
dilapidated, it was a sight that even the best of us squinters had
trouble overcoming. And yet, slowly, a largely forgotten part of
Portland’s past became an urban icon of living unlike anything
the country had ever seen: A unique blend of verve and vibrancy,
with more than a passing nod to Portland’s uncommon brand of
originality. Today, the Pearl District has earned a worldwide
reputation for urban renaissance. Diverse, architecturally
significant, residential communities thrive here. Galleries rub
shoulders with restaurants, shops open to parks, and no one has
to squint anymore to see the magic that’s taken hold. The Pearl is
the story of a vision come to life.”

66. Santa Fe Railyard R/UDAT (1997)

68. “It was an experiment in deep democracy. That is the
beauty of it –a true community effort, we were all in it
together. It was not created through a hierarchy of
controlling leadership.” – Steve Robinson, Santa Fe
Railyard Community Corporation

69. For urbanists and the design community, it’s
not only a democratic crisis, it is a real crisis
of relevance

70. Questions?
Joel Mills
joelmills@aia.org