Advanced search
Publication Cover
Planning Theory & Practice Volume 17, 2016 - Issue 4
Submit an article Journal homepage
846
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Bringing planning to the streets: using site-specific video as a method for participatory urban planning

Riina LundmanDepartment of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Turku, FinlandCorrespondence[email protected]
Pages 601-617 | Received 11 Nov 2015, Accepted 22 Jul 2016, Published online: 20 Sep 2016

References

  • Aitken, S. C., & Dixon, D. P. (2006). Imagining geographies of film. Erdkunde, 60, 326–336. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256479210.3112/erdkunde
  • Al-Kodmany, K. (1999). Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: Process, participation, and evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 45, 37–45. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00024-9.
  • Al-Kodmany, K. (2001). Visualization tools and methods for participatory planning and design. Journal of Urban Technology, 8(2), 1–37. doi:10.1080/106307301316904772.
  • Al-Kodmany, K. (2002). Visualization tools and methods in community planning: From freehand sketches to virtual reality. Journal of Planning Literature, 17, 189–211. doi:10.1177/088541202237335.
  • Attili, G. (2009). Qualitative inquiries and film languages in the planning field: A manifesto. In L. Sandercock & G. Attili (Eds.), Where strangers become neighbours: Integrating immigrants in Vancouver, Canada (pp. 259–269). Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-9035-6
  • Bäcklund, P., & Mäntysalo, R. (2010). Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – the case of Finland. Planning Theory, 9, 333–350. doi:10.1177/1473095210373684.
  • Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age ( Twentieth-anniversary edition). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Baum, H. (2015). Planning with half a mind: Why planners resist emotion. Planning Theory & Practice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/14649357.2015.1071870.
  • Bentkowska-Kafel, A., Cashen, T., & Gardiner, H. (Eds.). (2009). Digital visual culture: Theory and practice. Bristol: Intellect.
  • Bishop, I., & Lange, E. (Eds.). (2005). Visualization in landscape and environmental planning: Technology and applications. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
  • Bond, S. (2011). Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: Moving beyond the agonistic–communicative divide. Planning Theory, 10, 161–186.10.1177/1473095210383081
  • Brejzek, T., Greisenegger, W., & Wallen, L. (Eds.). (2011). Space & desire: Scenographic strategies in theatre, art and media. Zurich: Zurich University of the Arts.
  • Bruno, G. (1997). Site-seeing: Architecture and moving images. Wide Angle, 19, 8–24. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/wide_angle/v019/19.4bruno.html10.1353/wan.1997.0017
  • Bruno, G. (2002). Atlas of emotion: Journeys in art, architecture, and film. New York, NY: Verso.
  • Burns, A. (2000). Emotion and urban experience: Implications for design. Design Issues, 16, 67–79. doi:10.1162/07479360052053333.
  • Childs, M. C. (2008). Storytelling and urban design. Journal of Urbanism, 1, 173–186. doi:10.1080/17549170802221526.
  • Ciacci, L. (2010). Film works wonders: Analysis, history and town plan united in a single presentation. In L. Sandercock & G. Attili (Eds.), Multimedia explorations in urban policy and planning: Beyond the flatlands (pp. 3–15). Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-3209-6
  • Coglianese, C. (2007). Weak democracy, strong information: The role of information technology in the rulemaking process. In V. Mayer-Schönberger & D. Lazer (Eds.), Governance and information technology: From electronic government to information government (pp. 101–122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Dang, S. R. (2005). A starter menu for planner/artist collaborations. Planning Theory & Practice, 6, 123–126. doi:10.1080/1464935042000335029.
  • Degen, M., Melhuish, C., & Rose, G. (2015). Producing place atmospheres digitally: Architecture, digital visualisation and the experience economy. Journal of Consumer Culture, 0, 1–22. doi:10.1177/1469540515572238.
  • Delaney, B. (2000). Visualization in urban planning: They didn’t build LA in a day. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 20, 10–16. doi:10.1109/38.844365.
  • Edensor, T., & Sumartojo, S. (2015). Designing atmospheres: Introduction to special issue. [Editorial]. Visual Communication, 14, 251–265. doi:10.1177/1470357215582305.
  • Ertiö, T.-P. (2015). Participatory apps for urban planning: Space for improvement. Planning Practice & Research, 30, 303–321. doi:10.1080/02697459.2015.1052942.
  • Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 451–478. doi:10.1177/107808740003500401.
  • Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822380283
  • Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Foth, M. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook of research on urban informatics: The practice and promise of the real-time city. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  • Foth, M., Forlano, L., Satchell, C., & Gibbs, M. (Eds.). (2011). From social butterfly to engaged citizen: Urban informatics, social media, ubiquitos computing and mobile technology to support citizen engagement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Frantz, J. (2007). Using participatory video to enrich planning process. [Interface]. Planning Theory & Practice, 8, 103–107. doi:10.1080/14649350712331393349.
  • Garrett, B. L. (2010). Videographic geographies: Using digital video for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 35, 521–541. doi:10.1177/0309132510388337.
  • Gaut, B. (2010). A philosophy of cinematic art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511674716
  • Gold, J. R., & Ward, S. V. (1994). We’re going to do it right this time: Cinematic representations of urban planning and the British New Towns, 1939 to 1951. In S. Aitken & L. Zonn (Eds.), Place, power, situation and spectacle: A geography of film (pp. 229–258). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Hanzl, M. (2007). Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: A review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, 28, 289–307. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.003.
  • Hawkins, H. (2013). Geography and art: An expanding field: Site, the body and practice. Progress in Human Geography, 37, 52–71. doi:10.1177/0309132512442865.
  • Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B, 23, 217–234. doi:10.1068/b230217.
  • Hoch, C. (2006). Emotions and planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 7, 367–382. doi:10.1080/14649350600984436.
  • Howard, P. (2009). What is scenography? (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
  • Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 183–189. doi:10.1177/0739456X9501400307.
  • Korn, M. (2013). Situating engagement: Ubiquitous infrastructures for in-situ civic engagement ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Aarhus University, Århus.
  • Krajina, Z. (2014). Negotiating the mediated city: Everyday encounters with public screens. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  • Kwartler, M. (2005). Visualization in support of public participation. In I. Bishop & E. Lange (Eds.), Visualization in landscape and environmental planning: Technology and applications (pp. 251–260). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
  • Kwon, M. (2002). One place after another: Site-specific art and locational identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Landry, C. (2008). The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators (2nd ed.). London: Earthscan.
  • Lange, E. (2011). 99 volumes later: We can visualise. Now what? Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 403–406. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.016.
  • Lewi, H. (2014). Plans on film: “Scene five – cut to the professional smoking his pipe”. Fabrications, 24, 268–289. doi:10.1080/10331867.2014.961224.
  • Mandelbaum, S. J. (1991). Telling stories. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 10, 209–214. doi:10.1177/0739456X9101000308.
  • Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20, 335–350. doi:10.1177/0885412205286160.
  • McNamara, K. (2009). Location filming. In A. Latham, D. McCormack, K. McNamara, & D. McNeill (Eds.), Key concepts in urban geography (pp. 104–106). London: Sage.
  • Melhuish, C., Degen, M., & Rose, G. (2014). Architectural atmospheres: Affect and agency of mobile digital images in the material transformation of the urban landscape in Doha. Tasmeem, 2014(4), 1–14. doi:10.5339/tasmeem.2014.4.
  • Metzger, J. (2010). Strange spaces: A rationale for bringing art and artists into the planning process. Planning Theory, 10, 213–238. doi:10.1177/1473095210389653.
  • Milne, E.-J., Mitchell, C., & de Lange, N. (2012). Handbook of Participatory Video. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
  • Mistry, J., & Berardi, A. (2012). The challenges and opportunities of participatory video in geographical research: Exploring collaboration with indigenous communities in the North Rupununi, Guyana. Area, 44, 110–116. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01064.x.
  • Moere, A., & Hill, D. (2012). Designing for the situated and public visualization of urban data. Journal of Urban Technology, 19, 25–46. doi:10.1080/10630732.2012.698065.
  • Monaco, J. (2000). How to read a film: Movies, media, multimedia (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
  • Rannila, P., & T. Loivaranta (2015). Planning as dramaturgy: Agonistic approaches to spatial enactment. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12214
  • Rasinkangas, J. (2013). Sosiaalinen eriytyminen Turun kaupunkiseudulla. Tutkimus asumisen alueellisista muutoksista ja asumispreferensseistä [Social segregation in the city of Turku: A study on regional changes in housing and housing preferences]. Turku: Siirtolaisuusinstituutti.
  • Riihelä, J. (in press). Osallistumisen mahdollisuuksia: Tieto- ja viestintäteknologian käyttö osallistuvan suunnittelun välineenä [Possibilities for participation: Using information and communication technology as a tool for participatory planning]. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu, 54.
  • Rose, G. (2012). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
  • Salter, J. D., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2009). The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 2090–2101.10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.023
  • Sandercock, L. (2003). Out of the closet: The importance of stories and storytelling in planning practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 4, 11–28. doi:10.1080/1464935032000057209.
  • Sandercock, L. (2004). Towards a planning imagination for the 21st century. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70, 133–141. doi:10.1080/01944360408976368.
  • Sandercock, L. (2005). A new spin on the creative city: Artist/planner collaborations. [Interface]. Planning Theory & Practice, 6, 101–103. doi:10.1080/1464935042000334985.
  • Sandercock, L. (2007). Multimedia and planning: Introduction. [Interface]. Planning Theory & Practice, 8, 89–90. doi:10.1080/14649350712331393349.
  • Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2009). Where strangers become neighbours: Integrating immigrants in Vancouver, Canada. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-9035-6
  • Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2010a). Digital ethnography as planning praxis: An experiment with film as social research, community engagement and policy dialogue. Planning Theory & Practice, 11, 23–45. doi:10.1080/14649350903538012.
  • Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2010b). Multimedia explorations in urban policy and planning: Beyond the flatlands. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-3209-6
  • Sarkissian, W. (2007). Video as a tool in community engagement. [Interface]. Planning Theory & Practice, 8, 98–102. doi:10.1080/14649350712331393349.
  • Semm, K., & Palang, H. (2010). Landscape accessibility: Spaces for accessibility or spaces for communication? Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 4, 1–24. Retrieved from http://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2010-4
  • Statistics Finland. (2012). Municipal election 2012, voting districts, voting turnout. Statistics Finland. Retrieved from http://pxweb2.stat.fi/explorer/kunnallisvaalit_2012/aa_p_turk_en.shtml
  • Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2011). Urban reflections: Narratives of place, planning, and change. Bristol: Policy Press.
  • Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2013). Modern planning on film: Re-shaping space, image and representation. Berkeley Planning Journal, 26, 86–106. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3j42133f
  • Throgmorton, J. (2003). Planning as persuasive storytelling in a global-scale web of relationships. Planning Theory, 2, 125–151. doi:10.1177/14730952030022003.
  • van den Brink, A. (Ed.). (2007). Imaging the future: Geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
  • van Dijk, J. (2012). The evolution of the digital divide: The digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. In J. Bus, M. Crompton, M. Hildebrandt, & G. Metakides (Eds.), Digital enlightenment yearbook 2012 (pp. 57–75). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  • van Hulst, M. (2012). Storytelling, a model of and a model for planning. Planning Theory, 11, 299–318. doi:10.1177/1473095212440425.
  • Wallin, S., Horelli, L., & Saad-Sulonen, J. (2010). Digital tools in participatory planning. Espoo: Aalto University.
  • White, S. (Ed.). (2003). Participatory video: Images that transform and empower. New Delhi: Sage.

Filmography

  • Högnäs, K. (Director). (2014a). Ruissaloon vai rannalle? [ Beach or promenade?]. [Short film]. Finland: Roger! Pictures
  • Högnäs, K. (Director). (2014b). Näköalat vai nykytila? [ Scenery or status quo?]. [Short film]. Finland: Roger! Pictures
  • Högnäs, K. (Director). (2014c). Senioreita vai shoppailua?. [ Seniors or shopping?]. [Short film]. Finland: Roger! Pictures
  • Högnäs, K. (Director). (2014d). Jumppaa vai humppaa? [ Exercise or party?]. [Short film]. Finland: Roger! Pictures
  • Högnäs, K. (Director). (2014e). Taidetta vai dynamiittia? [ Arts or dynamite?]. [Short film]. Finland: Roger! Pictures

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.