This thesis considers the possibilities of urban space for lived democratic practice. Taking up the debate on ‘the good way’ of involving citizens in urban planning, I employ theories of deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism to examine participatory planning around the case of Tempelhofer Feld in Berlin, Germany. After its closure, the former airport Berlin Tempelhof turned into a public open space in 2010. Although there were plans of a partial development, an initiative-led bottom-up participation introduced a prohibition of permanent building development on Tempelhofer Feld in 2014. As one condition of the initiative, a combination of institutionalised and bottom-up participation has been established. The current conservative government of Berlin considers abolishing the prohibition of real-estate development. It thus disregards the importance of Tempelhofer Feld as a space for recreational and leisure activities, its importance for biodiversity and urban climate regulation and as a symbol of democratic achievements. Through a lens of deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism, this thesis focuses on the participation process since the referendum in 2014, from the perspective of urban planners, activists and those in-between. The two guiding research questions are: Which aspects of deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism can be found in statements by relevant actors during the participation process on Tempelhofer Feld since the referendum in 2014? How does the Senate’s plan to adjust the Tempelhofer Feld law affect the current participation in light of these theories? In line with the theoretical framework of deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism, I developed four themes that can be divided into a deliberative or agonistic understanding of participatory planning: “role of the planning administration”, “understanding of conflict”, “goals in dealing with conflict”, and “understanding of participation”. To investigate the different actors’ perspectives, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key actors, in addition to a document analysis, and participant observation. The main findings hold that the current Senate department for urban planning does not allow for productive conflict by shifting the understanding of conflict in a way that denies its own biased role. Additionally, I consider the current bottom-up participation model as an agonistic alternative to participatory planning introduced by the Senate department. Due to its abundance of different participation approaches, Tempelhofer Feld can be considered a significant case for urban planning scholars interested in participatory planning, also beyond Germany and Berlin.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:mau-68274 |
| Date | January 2024 |
| Creators | Greb, Maike Leonie |
| Publisher | Malmö universitet, Institutionen för Urbana Studier (US) |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds