Citizen Participation In Urban Planning Through Networking Technologies by Kotryna Navickaite

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN URBAN PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES Looking at the case of Lower Grefsen in the Municipality Development Plan of Oslo (2015 - 2030), how are the citizens using modern networking technologies to influence the planning process and to what extent has it been effective?

Citizen participation in urban planning through networking technologies: Looking at the case of Lower Grefsen in the Municipality Development Plan of Oslo (2015 - 2030), how are the citizens using modern networking technologies to influence the planning process and to what extent has it been effective?

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of BA (Hons) Architecture. Author: Kotryna Navickaite Student number: 150462051 Module: ARC3060 Year: 2017/2018 Word count: 8209 School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Newcastle University 4

Abstract

At the beginning of 2016 a resident discovered, almost by accident, that a part of his neighbourhood Grefsen in Oslo was to experience a tenfold increase of the number of residences according to the newly passed Municipality Development Plan of Oslo 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2030. Following this, the citizens quickly mobilized using, amongst other means, social media like Facebook, and eventually managed to achieve some results in opposing the densification. By analysing this case, the paper tries to understand how networking technologies were helpful for the people in achieving these results. Furthermore, through this example, the wider context in which this situation could arise in a democratic country will be looked into, where citizen participation in drafting of such documents is often so poor, that people managed to stay completely unaware of the fate of their neighbourhood during the whole time of drafting of the plan. Firstly, it will be analysed what citizen participation in urban planning is and what it takes to achieve a good process. Secondly, the paper will look into whether networking technologies have improved or have the potential to improve such processes. Subsequently, good examples of participatory processes and useful technologies will be considered. Lastly, the case of Lower Grefsen will be analysed trying to understand the role of networking technologies in the struggle of the citizens as well as the weaknesses of the participatory processes in Oslo Municipality.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Urban planning and participation

Participation and networking technologies

Precedents of participatory processes and technologies in urban planning

Case study of Lower Grefsen

Conclusion

List of Figures

Bibliography

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

60 7

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Roger Burrows, for introducing me to the subject of urban informatics and sharing his interest and enthusiasm for the field. I would like to thank him for his guidance and advice whilst producing this work. Furthermore, I would like to offer my special thanks to the rest of the academic staff who have been involved in the dissertation module for their recommendations and encouragements during the whole process of researching and writing. I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the humor, support and encouragements of my family, especially my mum Aiste, sister Egle, brother Mykolas and my grandparents, Alfonsas and Irena. They always make sure that I work hard and try my best. Finally, I would like to thank my good friends, Gosia and Luc for their invaluable personal support, advice and for keeping me going.

Introduction

Oslo is currently undergoing significant population growth. By 2040 it is expected to rise from approximately 650 000 to around 850 000.1 There is a general agreement that the city should densify, however, the disagreements lay in where the densification should take place and the extent of it. There are many interest groups in this process and they all have different objectives. The municipality has issued a Development Plan where they outline the strategies they wish to adopt and the areas they would like to densify trying to find the most effective and logical solutions for the city. The developers, on the other hand, are generally interested in maximizing the revenue from the development of the most attractive areas. However, there is one more quite important interest group in the city, and they are the citizens. How can the citizens have their interests recognized and attended to in the modern city? Jane Jacobs famously wrote that “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody”2. Similarly, in this essay it will be argued that high quality citizen participation is favourable if not essential when striving to create an inclusive city. A small, relatively quiet, residential area of 260 detached houses just north of central Oslo is currently an example where amongst the interests of the municipality and contractors, the citizens were to some extent forgotten. It is a relatively affluent neighbourhood

1 “Befolkningsfremskrivinger” [Census], Oslo Kommune, 2017 <https:// www.oslo.kommune.no/politikk-og-administrasjon/statistikk/befolkning/ befolkningsfremskrivinger/#gref> [accessed 11 October 2017] 2 Jane Jacobs, The Death And Life Of Great American Cities, 1st edn (New York: Vintage Books, 1961), p. 238.

which according to the inhabitants is well functioning. However, in late 2015 the municipality issued a development plan for Oslo and a part of the plan was dedicated to dealing with the growing population by adapting a specific densification policy. It states that in order to be environmentally friendly the city should densify along the existing tram, tube and train lines, more specifically around the key infrastructural points.3 In March 2016 a local resident, after closely analysing the plans, discovered that a part of his neighbourhood was to experience a tenfold increase in the number of residences. Considering the fact that the area is already fully exploited on ground plan, in practice this would mean that their houses would have to make place for tower blocks. The resident who discovered this wrote an article in the local newspaper to spread awareness about the issue and the reactions were strong as people realized that they might be pressured to move from their neighbourhood. To avoid this people started mobilizing quickly, in which social media was an important factor. They wanted to create serious discussions with the municipality. This, however, showed to be more difficult than the people imagined. This study will look at the case of Lower Grefsen in the Oslo Municipality Development Plan (2015 - 2030) to examine how the inhabitants of the neighbourhood have used and are using networking technologies to influence the planning process and what kind of impact this has on the decision making regarding the plan. To what extent is the city being created by “everybody”? It will be examined how this case can be understood in relation to discourses about participation in urban planning in the historically and in the contemporary world. This paper will also look if there are better examples of participation from which Oslo municipality and citizens can learn.

3 Oslo Mot 2030: Smart, Trygg Og Grønn Del 1 [Oslo Towards 2030: Smart, Safe and Green, Part 1] (Oslo: Oslo Kommune, 2015), p. 35 <https://goo.gl/ Q6chEH> [accessed 12 September 2017].

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

Citizen participation in urban planning is a theme which has been widely discussed since around the 1960’s when the focus on the topic resurged and it was implemented in several bigger urban regeneration programs4. It is generally agreed that not all participation leads to an equal amount of impact in the the planning process and outcome. Sherry Arnstein in “Ladder of Participation” uses a ladder with eight steps as a simplification for the different forms of participation where the participation on the lowest steps have minimal impact and the highest have maximum.5 In “Negotiation of hope”, an essay written for the book “Architecture and Participation”, Jeremy Till simplifies this “ladder” even further to placatory and transformative participation trying to understand their nature and how it is possible to move closer to the latter.6 Considerable amounts of writing also exists about the role of information technologies, internet and more specifically networking technologies in participation and democracy. In “Networked Publics” Kazys Varnelis writes about how new ways of communication developed with the emergence of the internet and how that affected political discussion and mobilization.7 In “The Responsive City” Stephen Goldsmith and Susan P. Crawford argued that networking technologies could make democracy and city management better, give examples on how some cities already are using new and modern tools to solve problems and engage citizens.8 Finally, there are articles talking about urban planning

4 John H. Strange, “Citizen Participation In Community Action And Model Cities Programs”, Public Administration Review, 32 (1972) https://doi. org/10.2307/975231 5 Sherry R. Arnstein, “A Ladder Of Citizen Participation”, Journal Of The American Institute Of Planners, 35.4 (1969) <https://doi. org/10.1080/01944366908977225> 6 Peter Blundell-Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till, Architecture And Participation, 1st edn (New York: Francis and Taylor, 2005). 7 Kazys Varnelis, Networked Publics (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2012). 8 Stephen Goldsmith and Susan Crawford, The Responsive City (Hoboken: Wiley, 2014).

INTRODUCTION

and its power structures in Norway. In “Participation in planning; a study of urban development in Norway” they mention that citizen participation in Norway is rarely above the minimum required standards.9 Hence, there are many general theories about citizen participation in urban planning and many analysis’ and examples of how it happens elsewhere, but what exactly is the case for Oslo right now and especially in the case of Lower Grefsen? To answer the research question, firstly the phrase “citizen participation through networking technologies” should be unpicked and understood. For this purpose, a document analysis was performed of primary sources, such as research papers, newspapers and websites, as well as secondary sources, like books, where these concepts were discussed. Analysing the case study, it was important to determine the aims of the municipality in the plan, what kind of networking technologies and how the citizen used them to influence the planning process and what kind of effect this had. For this purpose, analysis of primary sources like newspaper articles and social media groups, recordings from live discussions, websites and government documents was undertaken. Firstly, the paper will talk about urban planning and participation in general and its historic context. Secondly it will be discussed how participation processes might have changed with the emergence of networking technologies. Thirdly, the paper will look into examples where good participatory processes were implemented in the urban planning procedures of other cities and technologies with great potential for application in citizen participation processes. Finally, the case of Nedre Grefsen in Oslo will be examined.

9 Eva Irene Falleth and Gro Sandkjær Hansen, “Nr 42: Participation In Planning – A Study Of Urban Development In Norway”, The European Journal Of Spatial Development, 2011 <http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/refereed42.pdf> [accessed 12 October 2017]

Urban planning and participation

In order to understand how participation works in the case of Lower Grefsen it is important to establish the nature of citizen participation, how it works in urban planning and how it has developed over time. Firstly, it should be mentioned, that important decisions in urban planning are often made by the local or national authorities and therefore the participation in the planning process or the protest of it is largely a political undertaking. As Jeremy Till suggests: “Participation is inherently political, not in the party political way, but in the sense that it affects people’s lives.”10 However, in the following paragraphs it will be made clear that the power relations between the authorities and citizens is often very uneven and the participatory processes are ineffective and not generating any real change. One of the earliest cases where public participation was an important part of a bigger urban regeneration program was during “Model Cities” in the US (1966 – 1974). Already then, some of the frequent problems of participation were apparent. The plan stated that “widespread citizen participation” had to take place while implementing the plan, and that citizens were to be be provided tools to have “technical capacity to make decisions”.11 However public officials as well as politicians complained that during earlier programs of similar nature, like “Community Action Program” which sought “maximum feasible participation”, funds were given to

10 Peter Blundell-Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till, Architecture And Participation, 1st edn (New York: Francis and Taylor, 2005), p. 29. 11 John H. Strange, “Citizen Participation In Community Action And Model Cities Programs”, Public Administration Review, 32 (1972) p 657 https://doi. org/10.2307/975231

groups that were not “politically responsible”. Hence, in “Model Cities” an effort was made to limit the citizen participation, and the ultimate power and funding went to the local public officials.” 12 This highlights several problems; firstly, the participation which was “allowed” in the program was to some extent a spectacle and did not give the citizens any significant say in the new developments. Secondly, the people were regarded as not sufficiently “responsible” to make decisions regarding their own surroundings. Finally, even if the intention was to engage the citizens “The experiences of most Model Cities has shown that residents of target areas are rarely able to learn about the program until it reaches the planning stage.”13 Sherry Arnstein discussed these issues in “A Ladder of Participation.” 14 There she simplified the types of participation in the Model Cities program to eight steps recognizing that not with all participatory processes were the needs of the citizens equally recognized and addressed by the planning authorities and politicians. The lower steps of Arnstein’s ladder were strategies like informing or consultation. People could voice their wishes and concerns creating a sense of changing something, however there were no guarantees that the authorities would follow through. Conversely, the higher steps such as partnership or delegated power stand for a more equal relationship where eventually the citizens are in control. 15 There, the power is redistributed between the authorities and citizens through different mechanisms, sometimes even resulting in citizens acquiring the dominant position.

12 John H. Strange, “Citizen Participation In Community Action And Model Cities Programs”, Public Administration Review, 32 (1972) p 656 https://doi. org/10.2307/975231 13 Anthony J. Kline and Richard Le Gates, “Citizen Participation In The Model Cities Program - Toward A Theory Of Collective Bargaining For The Poor”, National Black Law Journal, 1 (1), 1971 p 51 <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0fx0k3r8> [accessed 4 September 2017] 14 Sherry R. Arnstein, “A Ladder Of Citizen Participation”, Journal Of The American Institute Of Planners, 35.4 (1969) https://doi. org/10.1080/01944366908977225 15 Ibid., pp 218 – 9

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

Some thirty years later in the essay “The Negotiation of Hope” written for the book “Architecture and Participation” Jeremy Till, with the starting point in “Ladder of Participation”, further unpicked the nature of participation and divided it in two different types, placatory and transformative. He talked about his experience of the participatory process in the “New Deal for Communities” program in the UK which he was quite discontent with and states that “under the guise of inclusion, the same old patterns of power repeat themselves, defeating the expectations of the participant citizens in actually gaining themselves anything better, and distancing them from the real processes of spatial production.” 16 He describes this as placatory participation where participation is only allowed by the authorities as long as it does not challenge them. However, he also claims that full citizen control will not result in better solutions because as the expert relinquishes all his power he also relinquishes all but his instrumental knowledge. “As mere facilitators the architects are unable to re–imagine their knowledge from the perspective of the user their knowledge is not used transformatively, rather their skills are used instrumentally.” 17 Transformative participation, he suggests, is the compromise between the previously mentioned extremes. Till then goes on to suggesting certain factors that should be in place for transformative participation to happen. Firstly, he claims that the architect (or the leader of a project) should be an expert citizen as well as a citizen expert. In other words, he should not relinquish his knowledge but redeploy it “not applied as an abstraction from outside, but developed from within the context of the given situation”18, i.e. see the value of the more practical knowledge of the citizen instead of dismissing it as a knowledge of lower grade. He most importantly

16 Peter Blundell-Jones, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till, Architecture And Participation, 1st edn (New York: Francis and Taylor, 2005), p. 24 17 Ibid., p. 31 18 Ibid., p. 32

URBAN PLANNING AND PARTICIPATION

emphasizes that good communication methods between the two parts are essential to obtain an effective, transparent and understandable process for all.19 Hence participation is largely a political process which should happen through effective communication methods between the engaged authorities and the citizens to create mutual understanding and balance the power relations. In the modern world completely new ways of communication and organization have emerged with the rise of information technology and more specifically networking technologies. The next question is therefore if this has changed or can change the participatory processes of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s society? Have the people of today managed to climb further up the ladder of participation?

Ibid., p. 36

Participation and networking technologies

Kazys Varnelis in “Networked Publics” writes that for example in media, the “the top-down, one-to-many relationship between mass media and consumers is being replaced, or at least supplemented, by many-to-many and peer-to-peer relationships.” 20 That is because internet with its relatively low cost has lowered the threshold of publishing and gives more people, easily accessible and more effective ways of distributing their knowledge, views etc. He continues by discussing how the modes of communication did not only change the way people were communicating with each other and the “authorities” in media, but also in politics. Since, as established above, participation in city planning is a highly political process, the internet has also changed the way people can participate in that process. He argues that through online deliberation and mobilization the political processes could be altered to be better than before. He points out that even though internet does not automatically guarantee more democracy, it is “a convivial milieu in which various political uses are thriving and new tools for political criticism and commentary are emerging”.21 The book further discusses two main modes of political participation online, namely online deliberation and online mobilization. The first can occur in various online forums where people can have informed debates about topics of importance to them which would in turn “reflect and influence public opinion as well as urge, if not compel, cooperation by political decision makers.”22 The benefits

20 Kazys Varnelis, Networked Publics (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2012), p. 42 21 Ibid., p. 80 22 Ibid., p. 83

of such type of participation is that it does not require people to actually gather in a physical space to have discussions which to some might be logistically impossible or difficult. Conversely, online mobilization, happens where it does not seem like rational and enlightened dialogue might be a possibility. In this case people form alliances focused on specific issues to either “promote or block social change”. 23 One of the benefits of this form of participation is that people can mobilize relatively quickly at a low cost. However, Varnelis highlights the importance of the use of “multiple media and organizing tactics”24 if success is to be achieved. These methods are mainly focused on citizen engagement and how they can use networking technologies to discuss different political issues and mobilize to achieve social change. On the other hand, how can the authorities use these technologies to engage citizens and listen to them better? Stephen Goldsmith and Susan Crawford in “The Responsive City” have an extremely positive outlook on the possibilities networking technologies can provide for creating dialogue between the citizens and the governing actors, regarding the management and development of the city. One example they discuss is social media such as Twitter and Facebook: “Twitter, Facebook, and other social media create a 24/7 window into what people are noticing, celebrating, or decrying. This combination of self-generated “big data” about people’s behaviour and their own contributions to social media is a rich vein of information about almost any problem a city government confronts”.25 If interested, the government can look at this readily available data and self evaluate its actions. Additionally, they emphasize the importance of information transparency on the behalf of the government to create the feeling

23 Ibid., p. 89 24 Ibid., p. 90 25 Stephen Goldsmith and Susan Crawford, The Responsive City (Hoboken: Wiley, 2014), pp. 3- 4

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

of trust and satisfaction from the citizens 26. In the case of city planning this means making data available in every stage of the planning process to people who are interested or have use for it.27 In order to do that according to the authors of the book, the data should be well visualized and accessible.28 However, in order to create a good participatory process and dialogue between citizens and the government, it is very important that citizens actually engage with the matters important to them. As the authors write: “Citizens need to develop a civic relationship among themselves in order to form a coherent community that is capable of having goals and a voice of its own—and of sometimes virtually marching on city hall on behalf of change”29 because “government’s bedrock authority for action derives from elections […] but an election never provides sufficient direction to decide the thousands of policy questions that a city government must resolve in a typical year […] it requires that people create and sustain a collective voice—a representation of a community that has true identity and thus the authority to speak for the people.”30 As expressed above, good dialogue between the citizens and authorities in political matters such as urban planning can only occur when the authorities are willing to seek knowledge about citizen opinions and be transparent. Citizens on the other hand need to be unified in voicing common concerns as well as sustaining their voice and authority. The following question is whether there already are any good examples that the municipality and the inhabitants of Lower Grefsen can learn from regarding the involvement of citizens in urban planning?

26 27 28 29 30

Ibid., p. 29 Ibid., p. 58 Ibid., p. 56 Ibid., pp. 28, 29 Ibid., p. 55

PARTICIPATION AND NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

Precedents of participatory processes and technologies in urban planning

There are many successful and less successful contemporary examples of citizen participation in urban planning. Some of them are initiated by the citizens, and some, by authorities. The examples considered here were chosen to showcase the variety of different possibilities ranging from completely technology based options, to more mixed strategies. The first example is from Santa Monica, California where the authorities have developed an application called “City Swipe”. It is somewhat similar to the dating app “Tinder” where the users are presented with a potential development and then can swipe left or right if they like or dislike the proposition respectively. The benefits of such an application could be that the authorities can simply gauge the general opinions of people without the need for organizing meetings or reading numerous emails for every proposal.31 However, the application to a great extent simplifies a very complex process and reduces the feedback to a yes/no question making the feedback to the planning process to some extent black and white when it is in fact all different shades between the two. It does not encourage broader discussion between the citizens themselves nor between the citizens and the authorities. Openness in the urban design process on behalf of the planning authorities is important as stated above, however even if the planning documents are made available online for regular citizens, they might be difficult to understand hence their implications

31 Oliver Wainwright, “Tinder For Cities: How Tech Is Making Urban Planning More Inclusive”, The Guardian, 2017 <https://www.theguardian.com/ cities/2017/jan/24/tinder-cities-technology-making-urban-planning-interactive> [accessed 21 October 2017].

Figure 1 (top): City Swipe Application Figure 2 (bottom): A new design is superimposed on the existing site using UrbanPlanAR.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

might remain unclear. ”UrbanPlanAr” is an application aimed at showing how new developments will change the space with the help of augmented reality. It is, according to their website, a “digital visualisation solution designed to enhance the value of BIM information by enabling in-field visualisation from any location, in real-time – creating more engaging and accessible understanding […]”32 In October 2017 after rebranding to ”True View Visuals” they are now offering onsite visualizations for which they charge £5000 per 2 days and video/ photo montages for which they charge £2000 and £400 respectively per view point.33 The benefits of such services are that they give a much better idea of what kind of impact a specific design will have on the surroundings. However, in its current state it seems like the planners will have to request visualizations from this company in every specific case if they wanted to offer them to the citizens. The virtual reality aspect of the app would probably not be accessible to anyone but the planners. It is hence a concept with a great potential, but it would need a lot of development in order to incorporate it effectively into the participatory processes of urban planning. The last example is ”PlanBude” from Hamburg, Germany. Although in this case technology was not an essential part of the participatory process, it is an excellent example of engaged citizens and receptive (eventually) authorities as well as highlighting key aspects of a good participatory process be they executed by high or low tech means. The Esso houses in Hamburg were situated in the red light district of the city which was known for its diversity of subcultures. In 2010 a contractor bought the houses and after a long struggle of resistance, in 2013 the tenants were evicted.

32 “Urbanplanar”, Urbanplanar, 2016 <http://urbanplanar.com> [accessed 19 September 2017]. 33 “Trueviewvisuals”, Trueviewvisuals, 2017 <http://trueviewvisuals.com> [accessed 9 November 2017].

PRECEDENTS OF PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES AND TECHNOLOGIES IN URBAN PLANNING

The collective force aimed at resisting eviction then changed the focus into demanding to have a say in what was going to be built there. At first, an independent, transdiciplinary assembly of people organized and started collecting input of what kind of development people wanted to see. Later they were engaged by the City of Hamburg and managed to collect as many as 2.300 wishes and designs. These wishes were systemized and later used for the drafting of the architectural competition brief.34 Some of the methods used for collecting input included “scale models of area and space, photo documentation, soundtrack, doorstep interview, drawing tasks, text reading, local school seminars, questionnaires and a number of social events” 35. One of the members of the committee, Reneé Tribble in a public interview during Oslo Urban Arena emphasized that when collecting data from the citizens it is important to facilitate all people, some express themselves better verbally, some by drawing, some by writing. Lastly she stated that even though often participation does not lead anywhere, when the whole neighbourhood is mobilised and stands behind a certain plan, it is hard to ignore them.36 It is apparent that many opportunities are available today in engaging the citizens as well as for the engaged citizens to voice their opinions and be heard. In the following chapter, the case study will be analysed looking into the nature of the communication between the citizens and the municipality, what kind of problems occurred and how some of the examples above could potentially be applied to improve the situation.

34 “Planbude: English Summary – Planbude Hamburg”, Planbude. De<http://planbude.de/planbude-planning-shack-english-summary/> [accessed 18 September 2017]. 35 “Program | Oslo Urban Arena”, Oslourbanarena.Com, 2017 <http:// oslourbanarena.com/program/> [accessed 22 December 2017]. 36 Appendix 1

Case study of Lower Grefsen

The case study was a qualitative form of research where firstly, primary sources such as government documents, legislation, research articles were used to understand the legal framework in which this situation could arise. Subsequently, to understand the case from the citizens’ perspective as well how different means were used to initiate conversation with the municipality, primary sources like newspaper spreads, notes from live discussions, Facebook pages and other social media were analysed as there has been extensive use of such media from the first instance in this matter.

On the planning processes in Norway The current form of planning in Norway is project planning and was introduced in the ”Planning and Building Act in 1985”. In essence, it is a market led way of planning where “a private project plan is prepared by private actors, i.e. they are the actual planners in terms of working out a formal proposal, and they are also responsible for the planning process right up until final political approval is granted by the local government. ”37 At the time of initiation, it came as a response for ineffective urban planning on behalf of the planning authorities, however now neo–liberal urban planning in Norway is criticized for prioritizing efficiency rather than implementing a thorough democratic process at all stages.38 Currently in Norway there are generally four actors involved in urban planning (Figure 3). 37 Eva Irene Falleth and Gro Sandkjær Hansen, “Nr 42: Participation In Planning – A Study Of Urban Development In Norway”, The European Journal Of Spatial Development, 2011, p. 3 <http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/refereed42.pdf> [accessed 12 October 2017]. 38 Eva Irene Falleth, Gro Sandkjær Hansen and Inger Lise Saglie, “Challenges To Democracy In Market-Oriented Urban Planning In Norway”, European Planning Studies, 18.5 (2010), p. 748 <https://doi.org/10.1080/09654311003607729>.

Figure 3: Interrelations between the different actors involved in urban planning in Norway.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

The criticism to the system mostly emerges due to its processes in which citizens do not hold much power in the decision making. In the first process, local politicians agree on a master plan of the city which is supposed to benefit its overall development and from that, zoning plans are drafted as a detailed implementation tool by the developers. However often the zoning plans do not correspond enough with the master plans. The second point of criticism comes from the fact that most of the planning seems to happen in the initial, informal part of the process where there is no legislation about citizen participation39 and when the participation does happen it manifests as a discussion about or objection against an already drafted proposal.40 41 Importantly it is shown that “ local communities are not drawn into planning beyond what is required by law.”42 The developers’ influence is not mentioned extensively in this case because the Municipality Development Plan of Oslo (2015 - 2030) is only the master plan which is supposed to either allow development in certain areas or not, and depending on the decision, the contractors will be involved in the further and more detailed design of the actual spaces.

Municipality Development Plan of Oslo (2015 – 2030) and Lower Grefsen The main aim for the Municipality Development Plan of Oslo (2015 – 2030) is to deal with the rapidly growing population. According to the plan, the population is expected to grow from 650 000 people in 2015 to around 800 000 in 2030. By focusing on the themes society, operation of the municipality and the physical growth of the city, the municipality hopes to ensure a sustainable expansion in all these aspects. The plan consists of two parts. Part 1 outlines

39 40 41 42

Falleth, S. Hansen, op. cit., p. 15 Ibid., p. 16 Falleth, S. Hansen, Saglie, op. cit., p. 742 Falleth, S. Hansen, op. cit., p. 12

CASE STUDY OF LOWER GREFSEN

the general aims and overall guidelines and Part 2, being legally binding, consists of zoning maps, thematic maps, stipulations and guidelines aimed at ensuring the inclusion of the general aims in the building application processing. Three key words are used as the ideals for the development of the city: smart, safe and green. Furthermore, the plan will have a programme of action and will be revised every year according to the situation in the city. The main strategy for the urban development of the city is mentioned in Part 1 of the plan. In the “Green” chapter, under aim 3, one of the outlined commitments is that the densification of the city will primarily happen along the train, tram and tube lines and around the key infrastructural junctions from the inner city and outwards (Figure 4). This is an environmental strategy to make public transport more attractive and frequently used. The chapter “City Development Strategy” 43 of Part 1, describes in more detail how this densification is going to happen. At the beginning of the chapter, it is mentioned that: It is […] important to develop a plan which preserves and develops the urban, […] natural and historical qualities of Oslo as well as facilitating the development of the architectural ones […]. The diversity of Oslo with the mosaic of different areas and neighbourhoods each with different features and identities will be strengthened.44 The legally binding Part 2 of the plan is based on this chapter to ensure that the aims are executed. Subsequently , the areas where densification will take place are named.45 Grefsen is quite a large area in Oslo (Figure 5) and while it is not mentioned once in the plan, a part of it, Lower Grefsen, is

43 Appendix 2. 44 Translation by the author. Source: (Oslo Mot 2030: Smart, Trygg Og Grønn Del 1 [Oslo Towards 2030: Smart, Safe and Green, Part 1] (Oslo: Oslo Kommune, 2015), p. 38 <https://goo.gl/Q6chEH> [accessed 12 September 2017]. 45 (Oslo Mot 2030: Smart, Trygg Og Grønn del 1 [Oslo Towards 2030: Smart, Safe and Green, Part 1] (Oslo: Oslo Kommune, 2015), p. 48 <https://goo.gl/ Q6chEH> [accessed 12 September 2017].

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

included in the maps of the identified places for densification under names of the neighbouring areas of Storo and Nydalen (Figures 6, 7). This would not be clear for the citizens without a thorough examination of the plan and, as will mentioned later in the text, this was also the case. This issue leads to the next question; what kind of participatory processes did Oslo municipality have whilst drafting this plan and was that enough for people of the different areas to know what was going to happen there and to have a say in the decisions made? In the ”Planning and Building Act” of Norway it is stated that the city council is the regulative authority and that during the drafting of planning and building, provisions need to be made for the public to contribute and have meaningful impact on the drafting of the plans, especially people directly affected by them.46 In the introduction of Part 1 of the plan it is stated that during the drafting, the municipality arranged several ways in which citizens could participate. This included a start up conference for the planning process 14.04.2011 where around 270 people participated, participatory meeting for four areas of the city autumn of 2012 and autumn of 2014, exhibition the winter of 2012, eight workshops about the focus of the strategy of the plan, competition for youth called “How do you want Oslo to look like in 2030?” in the spring of 2013, participatory conference 24.05.2013 where a draft of the plan was presented and discussed with around 250 people, meetings with neighbouring municipalities and meetings with interested organizations. 47

46 Medvirkning i Planlegging [Participation in planning] (Oslo: Kommunal og moderniseringsdepartementet, 2014), p. 14 <https://goo.gl/PVG2aa> [3 January 2018]. 47 (Oslo Mot 2030: Smart, Trygg Og Grønn Del 1 [Oslo Towards 2030: Smart, Safe and Green, Part 1] (Oslo: Oslo Kommune, 2015), p. 5 <https://goo.gl/ Q6chEH> [accessed 12 September 2017].

Figure 4: “Inside and out” principle of the densification of Oslo.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

Figure 5 (top): Boundaries of what is commonly referred to as Grefsen. Figures 6, 7 (right): Area exploitation strategy. Translation of map key. o Central points for public transport o Prioritized areas close to collective transport stops where densification is considered. o Urban development areas in the inner city. High exploitation of the area. o Urban development areas in the outer city. High exploitation of the area o Terminal areas o Existing train o Romerike tunnel/ Follo line o Existing/new tube o Existing/new tram o Main road network with collective transport lines. o New tunnels for roads. o Green spaces o Marka â&#x20AC;&#x201C; forest and hill areas around Oslo o Activity zones in Marka (open for recreational development) o Boat lines o Rivers

CASE STUDY OF LOWER GREFSEN

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

The municipality also has several other ways through which citizens can learn about the drafting of new plans and come in contact with them. They have Facebook 48 and Twitter 49 accounts which are followed by 20 000 people and 60 000 people respectively. However they are mostly used as one way communication methods where the municipality sometimes announce what is happening in the city hall, but complainants are almost always directed to their emailing or mailing system, where the municipality aims to answer within 8 weeks.50. They also have a website from which the visitor can find the pages for any building applications by several different search methods (Figure 8). It seems like this list would suffice in terms of giving the citizens a chance of having a say, hence, the draft of the plan was approved. At the beginning of 2016 the first article in the newspaper “Aftenposten” was published about a resident who discovered his neighbourhood was going to be massively densified.51 This could be regarded as the first sign that the participatory process organized by the municipality was in fact not sufficient to engage enough citizens and make them aware of the prospects of their neighbourhood.

48 “Oslo Kommune”[Oslo Municipality], Facebook.Com <https://www. facebook.com/Oslo/> [2 May 2017]. 49 “@Oslo Kommune On Twitter”, Twitter.Com <https://twitter.com/ oslokommune> [accessed 11 October 2017]. 50 “Klage På Vedtak I Plan- Og Byggesaker” [Complaints on the Decisions in Planning and Building Cases] , Oslo Kommune<https://www.oslo.kommune.no/ plan-bygg-og-eiendom/klage/klage-pa-vedtak-i-plan-og-byggesaker/> [accessed 11 August 2017]. 51 Stein Erik Kirkebøen, “Villastrøk Kan Bli Til Blokker - Men Det Fikk Ikke Politikerne Med Seg”[Detached House Neighbourhood Can Turn Into One Of Tower Blocks, But Local Politicians Did Not Realize ], Aftenposten.No, 2016 <https://www. aftenposten.no/osloby/i/9bX9/Villastrok-kan-bli-til-blokker---men-det-fikk-ikkepolitikerne-med-seg> [accessed 12 May 2017].

CASE STUDY OF LOWER GREFSEN

Figure 8: Oslo municipality web page for planning, building and property. Planning applications cases

What is the case for your property

Planning decisions

Are you going to build, demolish or change?

Map and property information

Division, merging or measuring of property

Guidance, forms

Customer service

Planning proposals or planning changes

Express your opinion on the planning cases

Complaints

Lift checks

Cultural heritage

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

The value of neighbourhood The neighbourhood as it is today came into existence around 1900 when Disen farm put 36 plots of land up for sale and this settlement later spread.52 At the moment, in the area which is identified for densification, there are 280 detached houses with 480 living units.53 Benedicte Bull, the leader of the densification resistance group, emphasizes that the neighbourhood with inhabitants of all ages is well functioning and loved amongst the people. They have a band and a football team and are proud of their history.54 According to Bull, people do not understand why a neighbourhood which already functions well should be demolished to make way for high rise apartment blocks with a planned area exploitation of 125%55 56. Furthermore, as stated above the municipality in the plan wants to preserve the features and identities of the wide range of different neighbourhoods in the city, however, if the plan is to be realized as it is today, it can be argued that very few of the qualities of Nedre Grefsen will be preserved.

52 “Historisk Tverrsnitt | Historielaget Grefsen, Kjelsås, Nydalen” [Historical Cross Section, Historical Association, Grefsen, Kjelsås, Nydalen ], Historielaget-Gkn. No, 2010 <http://historielaget-gkn.no/?page_id=72#oslo> [4 January 2018]. 53 Karl Andreas Kjelstrup, “Hvem Visste Hva Da Nedre Grefsen Ble Utviklingsområde?” [Who Knew What When Grefsen Became an Area for Development], Nordre Aker Budstikke, 2016 <http://nab.no/index.php?page=vis_ nyhet&NyhetID=13262> [4 January 2018]. 54 Ester Nordland, “Kampen Om Fortetting Eller Bevaring”[Disagreements About Densification or Preservation], Byplanoslo.No, 2017 <http://byplanoslo.no/ content/kampen-om-fortetting-eller-bevaring> [15 December 2017]. 55 Kjelstrup op. cit. 56 Stein Erik Kirkebøen, “Blokk-Sjokket På Grefsen: - Det Er Et Rødglødende Raseri Mange Steder”[Tower Block Shock in Grefsen, There is a Burning Rage Multiple Places], Aftenposten, 2016 <https://www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/ p6L8G/Blokk-sjokket-pa-Grefsen---Det-er-et-rodglodende-raseri-mange-steder> [4 January 2018].

CASE STUDY OF LOWER GREFSEN

Figure 9 (top): Nedre Grefsen today. Being relatively close to both the city centre and infrastructural nodes, the neighbourhood is however still experienced as quiet and secluded. Figure 10 (bottom): â&#x20AC;&#x153;Not for saleâ&#x20AC;?. Majority of the houses in the area placed this sign on their property to clearly show their stance on the densification matter.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

Figure 11: Lower Grefsen in 2030? An image taken from the Facebook page of the Lower Grefsen Resistance group. The aim is for the neighbourhood to stay like on the top photo.

CASE STUDY OF LOWER GREFSEN

Lower Grefsen Resistance Group Quickly after a resident of the neighbourhood discovered the densification plans and wrote about it in the local newspaper57 people mobilized to resist this development. One of the first things they did was to create a Facebook group and talk to newspapers. Haavard Nordlie, the resident who discovered the plans stated in “Aftenposten” that they were going to fight with tooth, nail and computers for their case58 or like Goldsmith and Crawford said, “virtually march […] on the city hall on behalf of (or against) change.”59 Currently the Facebook group has around 3700 members both from around the area and other people who support their case and the activity on the group is almost daily.60 The group has not just mobilized online, they also organize meetings and share meetings organized by the municipality. One of the events they organized was a street party with a concert to show their resistance.61 Another event was a march of several hundred people to a meeting with the local politicians to create both online visibility as well as physical.62

57 Haavard Nordlie, “Plansjokk For Nedre Grefsen”[Planning Shock in Grefsen], Talefoten, 2018, pp. 1,11<http://www.talefoten.no/talefoten032016/ index. html#/10/> [4 January 2018]. 58 Kirkebøen op. cit. 59 Goldsmith, Crawford op. cit., p. 53 60 “Stopp Ødelegging Av Nedre Grefsen”[Stop The Destruction of Lower Grefsen], Facebook.Com<https://www.facebook.com/ groups/579198825580154/> [12 May 2017]. 61 Sofie Løchen Smesdrud, “- Vi Er Nødt Til Å Slåss!”[We Have To Fight!], Nordre Aker Budstikke, 2017 <http://nab.no/nyheter/vi-er-nodt-til-aslass/19.13042> [21 January 2018]. 62 Kristin Tufte Haga, “Mange Hundre På Vei Til Bydelsutvalget”[Several Hundred People on Their Way to the District Council ], Nordre Aker Budstikke, 2016 <http://nab.no/index.php?page=vis_nyhet&NyhetID=12561> [21 January 2018].

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

Activity on the Facebook group is also happening in the form of sharing and discussing the newest events in the process of negotiation with the municipality as a form of online deliberation. 63 Although the Facebook group was meant as a means of communicating, deliberating amongst each other, most of all it was a means of creating a big enough movement to start a discussion with a municipality. However, the leader of the resistance group, Benedicte Bull has stated on several occasions that it has been difficult initiating productive discussion with the politicians64 as they have often put off the Lower Grefsen resistance group as spoiled and stubborn villa owners65. Hence the situation opposite to what Jeremy Till was suggesting in “Negotiation of Hope”66. The “experts” were to some extent dismissing the more practical knowledge of the citizens as not as valuable. Furthermore, spreads in online and print newspapers were used to a great extent by the group to create wider awareness about their case, and exerting pressure on politicians in order to initiate discussions.

63 “Stopp Ødelegging Av Nedre Grefsen”[Stop the Destruction of Lower Grefsen], Facebook.Com<https://www.facebook.com/ groups/579198825580154/> [04 January 2018]. 64 18 – 19th of September I attended the conference “Oslo Urban Arena” in Oslo (oslourbanarena.com) where contemporary leading urban experts were speaking about the dilemmas, problems and solutions for good urban planning in the modern age. One of the live discussions was with Benedicte Bull as a representative for the Resistance group of Lower Grefsen as well as politicians and developers. The discussion was about whether the inhabitants of these areas were sabotaging the municipality plan or if they were rather engaged citizens whose opinions had not been heard. 65 Nordland, op. cit. 66 Blundell-Jones, Petrescu, Till, op. cit., p. 32

CASE STUDY OF LOWER GREFSEN

Figure 12: “Stop the destruction of Lower Grefsen.” The Facebook group of Lower Grefsen resistance group.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

Redrafting of the Municipality Development Plan of Oslo 2015 – 2030 and the effect Lower Grefsen Resistance Group had on the process At the beginning of 2017 the municipality released a new draft of the plan and this time to hear the opinions of the citizens they organized and promoted several participatory meetings on Facebook. Some of the meetings would happen on Facebook and some of them would be in a physical space to meet people where they are, according to the politicians.67 However, the six organized meetings often had relatively few spaces and were filled up very quickly. In the central area of Oslo which is considered in the city development plan there are around 250 000 people, but one venue only had space for 120 people.68 Some of the meetings were streamed online. However, the feedback of the people about the meetings carried much of the same criticism of not being heard properly, but instead being presented with the same doctrines, and instead of providing the participants with answers, politicians asked to send formal complaints.69 This criticism could also be found on the event pages on Facebook (Figure 13).

67 Stein Erik Kirkebøen, “Ny Kommuneplan: Byrådet Møter Folket – På Facebook”[New Municipality Plan, the Municipality Meets the People on Facebook], Aftenposten, 2017 <https://www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/9JyEl/Nykommuneplan-Byradet-moter-folket---pa-Facebook> [21 January 2018]. 68 Stein Erik Kirkebøen, “Byrådet Er Tatt På Senga - Trenger Flere Stoler”[The Municipality is Surprised, They Need More Chairs], Aftenposten, 2017 <https:// www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/azqQM/-Byradet-er-tatt-pa-senga---trenger-flerestoler> [21 January 2018]. 69 Erlend Tro Klette, “– Forventer Dere At Vi Skal Godta Manhattan På Montebello”[Are You Expecting That We Will Accept Manhatten in Montebello?], Aftenposten, 2017 <https://www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/4pGxG/ Osloborgerne-motte-byradene--Vi-fikk-absolutt-ingenting-ut-av-folkemotet>[21 January 2018].

CASE STUDY OF LOWER GREFSEN

As a result of this, the Lower Grefsen Resistance group together with similar associations in Oslo, started collaborating as one “Citizens in Action” association around August 2017 also creating a Facebook group70. Together they arranged a meeting where more than 500 people attended, including politicians, to discuss all aspects of the potential consequences of the planned densification and to create the democracy they felt that they lacked71. This mobilization of first, the Lower Grefsen Resistance group with all its external supporters, and then the collaboration with several other like minded groups did have an effect on the redrafting of the plan as well as on the fate of the neighbourhood, although not as much as they would have liked. In July 2017 a new draft of the plan was issued where the amount of densification in Lower Grefsen was not specified as “high” like in the previous one, but the exact amount was not given72 73. Additionally, there will not be any further actions taken in terms of densification until an environmental impact assessment (EA) has been prepared. However, the citizens of Lower Grefsen aim of being completely removed from the densification plans was not fulfilled 74.

70 “Beboeraksjon Oslo. Bevar Byens Nabolag.”[Citizens In Action, Preserve Neighbourhoods of the City], Facebook.Com<https://www.facebook.com/ BeboeraksjonOslo/> [23 January 2018]. 71 Karl Andreas Kjelstrup, “Sammen Står Vi Sterkere”[Together, We Are Stronger], Nordre Aker Budstikke, 2017 <http://nab.no/nyheter/sammen-star-visterkere/19.15168> [21 January 2018]. 72 Nordland, op. cit. 73 Kommuneplan For Oslo Samfunnsdel Med Byutviklingsstrategi Høringsutkast April 2017 [Municipality Plan for Oslo Society and Town Development Strategies, Draft] (Oslo: Oslo Kommune City Council, 2017), p. 59 <https://goo.gl/FgTfVg> [22 January 2018]. 74 Pia Farstad von Hall and others, “Fortsatt Fortetting På Smestad Og Nedre Grefsen!”[Densification is Still Happening in Smestad and Lower Grefsen!], Nordre Aker Budstikke, 2017 <http://nab.no/index.php?page=vis_ nyhet&NyhetID=15217> [21 January 2018].

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

All in all, it could be argued that Facebook as a networking technology was a valuable means of communication in the case of Lower Grefsen Resistance group to mobilize likeminded people quickly both from the neighbourhood and from the rest of the city creating discussions both amongst themselves and also eventually with the municipality. However, it can also be argued that a big part of the success is the fact that the citizens used a variety of means of expressing their opinions, such as talking to newspapers, creating physical events to make themselves visible not only online but also in the streets and assembly halls. As stated above, Kazys Varnelis highlights the importance of use of “multiple media and organizing tactics”75 which to a great extent happened in this case. It should be noted that the cultural capital of the citizens in the neighbourhood will probably have contributed in deciding upon which tactics to deploy in this struggle.76

75 Varnelis, op. cit., p. 90 76 The neighbourhood is relatively affluent and all the administrators of the Facebook group have careers in amongst others, academics, journalism, media, hence it could be assumed that they have experience or knowledge of how to act in cases like this. The question is, what would happen to Nedre Grefsen if the inhabitants did not have this knowledge. Two of the adminitrators are Benedicte Bull: ”Benedicte Bull, Centre For Development And The Environment”, Sum.Uio. No, 2017 <http://www.sum.uio.no/english/people/aca/bbull/> [25 January 2018] and Paal Ritter Schjerven ”Paal Ritter Schjerven”, Facebook.Com <https://www. facebook.com/paal.schjerven> [25 January 2018].

CASE STUDY OF LOWER GREFSEN

Figure 13: Comments on the wall of the meeting arranged by the municipality on the 3rd of March 2017. “This was probably the most awkward online meeting we have experienced. The chief executive of the city council was not there and the council for environmental affairs and communication wormed their way out with a few unimportant comments. I do not think that any important questions were really answered in a good way.” “Too bad you did not bother answering my question/post!” “I am very disappointed that none of my very straight forward questions have been answered. I ask the chief executive to email me the answers. Have a good weekend.”

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

Participatory Problems in Norway It is apparent from the case study above that there are several democratic participation problems in urban planning in Norway. Scholars as well as corporations have written about it 77 78, and the Norwegian Government itself is aware of these issues. A study by Asplan Viak shows that even though few participatory processes are at bare minimum, few are also far above79 while Falleth and Sandkjær are even more sceptical 80. Although devising a plan which could “fix” the situation is out of the scope of this paper, there are perhaps some open suggestions that could be made. The first apparent problem was that the inhabitants of Lower Grefsen only learned about the densification plans by accident, this is due to the fact that communities are not involved in the drafting of the plan itself, only allowed to give feedback on a ready draft, and because the draft was not made visible enough for the people effected by it which resulted in its passing without their knowledge. The second problem is that the legislation only requires very limited participation and few participatory processes involve people more than required which also happened in this case (the people of Lower Grefsen were perhaps involved even less than required). Lastly, the knowledge of the people living in the area as well other similar areas was arguably not regarded as valuable. Without changing the legislation, a solution could be visualizing the proposals and making them available on different media so that they are firstly, more engaging and secondly, more easily

77 Falleth, S. Hansen, op. cit., p. 12 78 Asplan Viak, “Virker Medvirkning Virkelig”Evaluering Av Planmedvirkning I Storbyene, [Does Participation Really Work? Evaluation of participatory processes in Cities of Norway] 2007, p. 16 <https://goo.gl/oQrE7p> [10 December 2017]. 79 Ibid., p. 39 80 Medvirkning I Planlegging (Oslo: Kommunal og moderniseringsdepartementet, 2014), p. 12 <https://goo.gl/PVG2aa> [3 January 2018].

CASE STUDY OF LOWER GREFSEN

understandable for the citizens. In 2014, the Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation wrote about the need of clearer public announcements when the drafting of relevant documents started and they did emphasize using different media from newspapers of different scales to the internet.81 However looking at the Lower Grefsen case, it could be argued that much progress has not been made. ”CitySwipe” and ”UrbanPlanAr”, as mentioned previously, are applications and technologies with great potential as media of visualizing and making the different planning proposals understandable. In terms of recognizing the knowledge of the citizens, ”PlanBude” from above is a great example where regular people had an amazing amount of influence in what was going to be built in their neighbourhood. When it comes to collecting feedback from the people, again, looking at what is happening on Facebook and Twitter does indeed give a great insight into people’s opinions and instead of directing all the complainants to the official mailing and emailing system, the municipality should perhaps find a way of collecting this information and using it.

81 Medvirkning I Planlegging (Oslo: Kommunal og moderniseringsdepartementet, 2014), pp. 28, 29 <https://goo.gl/PVG2aa> [3 January 2018].

Conclusion

As can be seen above, although citizen participation in urban planning has been a topic of discussion for a long time, in the case of Lower Grefsen in Norway it was far from perfect. Despite this fact, the emergence of networking technologies and the internet has pushed the matter in the right direction. As mentioned, city planning is a political process which affects peoples lives. In order to take into account both the opinions of politicians and the opinions of citizens in this process, good communication methods have to be in place. Before the emergence of networking technologies, this was quite difficult, most of the communication had to happen in physical spaces which naturally has its limitations. In order to look through proposed plans, people would actually have to pursue the physical copies. Moreover, mobilization could not happen quickly. This has been changing for a while, all the planning documents of Oslo Municipality are available online, meetings can be arranged both online and in halls. The potential of reaching out to people is there. On the other side, through social media and traditional media which is also now distributed on the internet, it is also easier for people to reach out to politicians, mobilize and make themselves visible. The problem perhaps in this case was that the municipality did not use this possibility as much as they should have had, while the people did have a say at last because they mobilized quickly using modern technologies as well as more traditional means. Although new technologies exist (and the potential for new ones is enormous) for making the participatory process easier, quicker, more easily understandable, they are only occasionally utilized by municipalities and the participatory processes are not always up to date with current technology. There can be many reasons for that. However, although creating the perfect democracy is probably impossible, one always has to try moving in the right direction. People should to be able to have some 48

control in matters as important to them as the place that they live. Authors Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams have recently stated rather dismally about protests and people expressing their opinions that “Despite the desires of millions for a better world, the effects of these movements prove minimal”82.However, one can see various places that people are working tirelessly towards making citizen participation better. For example, the research initiative ”Digital Civics” at Newcastle University have since 2014 been ” examining the design and application of digital technologies in different areas of service provision”83 and amongst them city planning trying to engage a wide range of people. Therefore, as stated, this paper holds the view that it is not all in vain, and hopefully it will be visible as the story of Lower Grefsen continues that “social media and data science are spurring a sense of renewed civic engagement, which will cause broad changes in government.”84

82 Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, Inventing The Future: Postcapitalism And A World Without Work(London: Verso Kindle Edition, 2016), pp. Kindle Locations 99-100. 83 ”Digital Civics, About”, Digitalcivics.Io, 2018 <https://digitalcivics.io/ about/> [25 January 2018]. 84 Stephen Goldsmith and Susan Crawford, The Responsive City (Hoboken: Wiley, 2014), p. 1

List of Figures

Figure 1. “City Swipe Application” Source: “City Swipe DTSM | Content”, City Swipe DTSM, 2017 <http://www.dtsmcityswipe. com/> [11 October 2017]. Figure 2. “A new development is superimposed on the existing reality of the site using UrbanPlanAR.” Source: “Urbanplanar”, Urbanplanar, 2016 <http://urbanplanar.com> [accessed 19 September 2017]. Figure 3. “Interrelations of the different actors involved in urban planning in Norway” Source: Eva Irene Falleth and Gro Sandkjær Hansen, “Nr 42: Participation In Planning – A Study Of Urban Development In Norway”, The European Journal Of Spatial Development, 2011, p. 6 <http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/ refereed42.pdf> [accessed 12 October 2017]. Figure 4. ““Inside and Out” principle of densification of Oslo.” Source: (Oslo Mot 2030: Smart, Trygg Og Grønn del 1 [Oslo Towards 2030: Smart, Safe and Green, Part 1] (Oslo: Oslo Kommune, 2015), p. 44 <https://www.oslo.kommune.no/getfile.php/1374699/Innhold/ Politikk%20og%20administrasjon/Politikk/Kommuneplan /Ny%20kommuneplan%202015/Kommuneplan%202015%20 del%201%20justert%2031.01.2017.pdf> [accessed 12 September 2017]. Figure 5. “Boundaries of what is commonly referred to as Grefsen”. Source: Author.

Figure 6, Figure 7. “Area exploitation strategy.” Source: (Oslo Mot 2030: Smart, Trygg Og Grønn del 1 [Oslo Towards 2030: Smart, Safe and Green, Part 1] (Oslo: Oslo Kommune, 2015), p. 60 <https://www.oslo.kommune.no/getfile.php/1374699/Innhold/ Politikk%20og%20administrasjon/Politikk/Kommuneplan/Ny%20 kommuneplan%202015/Kommuneplan%202015%20del%20 1%20justert%2031.01.2017.pdf> [accessed 12 September 2017]. Figure 7 “Oslo municipality web page for planning, building and property.” Source: “Plan, Bygg Og Eiendom”[Planning, building and property] , Oslo Kommune <https://www.oslo.kommune.no/planbygg-og-eiendom/#gref> [12 August 2017]. Figure 8. “Nedre Grefsen today.” Source: Author. Figure 9. “Not for sale”. Source: Author. Figure 10. “Lower Grefsen in 2030?” Source: <https://www. facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153473965201056&set=gm. 587350268098343&type=3&theater> [4 January 2018]. Figure 11. Figure 12: Comments on the wall of the meeting arranged on the 3rd of March 2017. Source: “Møt Byrådet Til Idémøte Om Fremtidens Oslo! #Mittoslo”, Facebook.Com, 2017 <https:// www.facebook.com/events/1789136118003551/> [14 November 2017]. Figure 13. “Comments on the wall of the meeting arranged on the 3rd of March 2017.” Source: “Møt Byrådet Til Idémøte Om Fremtidens Oslo! #Mittoslo”, Facebook.Com, 2017<https://www. facebook.com/events/1789136118003551/> [14 November 2017].

Bibliography

Arnstein, Sherry R., “A Ladder Of Citizen Participation”, Journal Of The American Institute Of Planners, 35 (1969), 216-224 <https://doi. org/10.1080/01944366908977225> Asplan Viak, “Virker Medvirkning Virkelig” Evaluering Av Planmedvirkning I Storbyene, 2007, pp. 16, 39 <http://www.allgronn. org/virker%20medvirkning%20virkelig.pdf> [10 December 2017] “Beboeraksjon Oslo. Bevar Byens Nabolag.”, Facebook.Com <https://www.facebook.com/BeboeraksjonOslo/> [23 January 2018] “Befolkningsfremskrivinger”, Oslo Kommune, 2017 <https:// www.oslo.kommune.no/politikk-og-administrasjon/statistikk/ befolkning/befolkningsfremskrivinger/#gref> [11 October 2017] ”Benedicte Bull, Centre For Development And The Environment”, Sum.Uio.No, 2017 <http://www.sum.uio.no/english/people/aca/ bbull/> [25 January 2018] Bjerkan, Lorns, “Oslo Kommune Sendte Ut Nær En Halv Million SMS Til Innbyggerne Uten Å Vite Hva Det Kostet”, Aftenposten, 2017 <https://www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/78Byv/Oslo-kommunesendte-ut-nar-en-halv-million-SMS-til-innbyggerne-uten-a-vitehva-det-kostet> [15 September 2017] Blundell-Jones, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremy Till, Architecture And Participation, 1st edn (New York: Francis and Taylor, 2005), p. 23

Budstikke, Nordre, “Nordre Aker Budstikke”, Nordre Aker Budstikke <http://nab.no> [13 December 2017] “City Swipe DTSM | Content”, City Swipe DTSM, 2017 <http:// www.dtsmcityswipe.com/> [11 October 2017] ”Digital Civics, About”, Digitalcivics.Io, 2018 <https://digitalcivics. io/about/> [25 January 2018] Falleth, Eva Irene, and Gro Sandkjær Hansen, “Nr 42: Participation In Planning – A Study Of Urban Development In Norway”, The European Journal Of Spatial Development, 2011, 3, 12, 15, 16 <http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/refereed42.pdf> [12 October 2017] Falleth, Eva Irene, Gro Sandkjaer Hanssen, and Inger Lise Saglie, “Challenges To Democracy In Market-Oriented Urban Planning In Norway”, European Planning Studies, 18 (2010), 742, 748 <https:// doi.org/10.1080/09654311003607729> Farstad von Hall, Pia, Camilla Wilhelmsen, Espen Ophaug, and Erik Lunde, “Fortsatt Fortetting På Smestad Og Nedre Grefsen!”, Nordre Aker Budstikke, 2017 <http://nab.no/index.php?page=vis_ nyhet&NyhetID=15217> [21 January 2018] “Forsiden - Aftenposten”, Aftenposten.No <http://aftenposten. no> [7 December 2017] Goldsmith, Stephen, and Susan Crawford, The Responsive City (Hoboken: Wiley, 2014), pp. 3, 4, 29, 56, 53, 58 “Historisk Tverrsnitt | Historielaget Grefsen – Kjelsås – Nydalen”, Historielaget-Gkn.No, 2010 <http://historielaget-gkn.no/?page_ id=72#oslo> [4 January 2018]

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

Jacobs, Jane, The Death And Life Of Great American Cities, 1st edn (New York: Vintage Books, 1961), p. 238 Kirkebøen, Stein Erik, “Blokk-Sjokket På Grefsen: - Det Er Et Rødglødende Raseri Mange Steder”, Aftenposten, 2016 <https:// www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/p6L8G/Blokk-sjokket-pa-Grefsen--Det-er-et-rodglodende-raseri-mange-steder> [4 January 2018] Kirkebøen, Stein Erik, “Byrådet Er Tatt På Senga - Trenger Flere Stoler”, Aftenposten, 2017 <https://www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/ azqQM/-Byradet-er-tatt-pa-senga---trenger-flere-stoler> [21 January 2018] Kirkebøen, Stein Erik, “Ny Kommuneplan: Byrådet Møter Folket – På Facebook”, Aftenposten, 2017 <https://www.aftenposten. no/osloby/i/9JyEl/Ny-kommuneplan-Byradet-moter-folket---paFacebook> [21 January 2018] Kirkebøen, Stein Erik, “Villastrøk Kan Bli Til Blokker - Men Det Fikk Ikke Politikerne Med Seg”, Aftenposten.No, 2016 <https://www. aftenposten.no/osloby/i/9bX9/Villastrok-kan-bli-til-blokker---mendet-fikk-ikke-politikerne-med-seg> [12 May 2017] Kjelstrup, Karl Andreas, “Hvem Visste Hva Da Nedre Grefsen Ble Utviklingsområde?”, Nordre Aker Budstikke, 2016 <http://nab.no/ index.php?page=vis_nyhet&NyhetID=13262> [4 January 2018] Kjelstrup, Karl Andreas, “Sammen Står Vi Sterkere”, Nordre Aker Budstikke, 2017 <http://nab.no/nyheter/sammen-star-visterkere/19.15168> [21 January 2018] “Klage På Vedtak I Plan- Og Byggesaker”, Oslo Kommune <https://www.oslo.kommune.no/plan-bygg-og-eiendom/klage/ klage-pa-vedtak-i-plan-og-byggesaker/> [11 August 2017]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kline, Anthony J., and Richard Le Gates, “Citizen Participation In The Model Cities Program - Toward A Theory Of Collective Bargaining For The Poor”, National Black Law Journal, 1 (1), 1971, 51 <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0fx0k3r8> [4 September 2017] Kommuneplan For Oslo Samfunnsdel Med Byutviklingsstrategi Høringsutkast April 2017 (Oslo: Oslo Kommune City Council, 2017), p. 59 <https://www.oslo.kommune.no/getfile. php/13213412/Innhold/Politikk%20og%20administrasjon/ Politikk/Kommuneplan/Ny%20kommuneplan%20p%C3%A5%20 h%C3%B8ring/Oslo%20kommune_Utkast_Kommuneplan.pdf> [22 January 2018] Løchen Smesdrud, Sofie, “- Vi Er Nødt Til Å Slåss!”, Nordre Aker Budstikke, 2017 <http://nab.no/nyheter/vi-er-nodt-til-aslass/19.13042> [21 January 2018] Medvirkning I Planlegging (Oslo: Kommunal og moderniseringsdepartementet, 2014), pp. 12, 14, 28, 29 <https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kmd/plan/ medvirkningsveileder/h2302b_veileder_medvirkning.pdf> [3 January 2018] Nordland, Ester, “Kampen Om Fortetting Eller Bevaring | Byplanoslo”, Byplanoslo.No, 2017 <http://byplanoslo.no/content/ kampen-om-fortetting-eller-bevaring> [15 December 2017] Nordlie, Haavard, “Plansjokk For Nedre Grefsen”, Talefoten, 2018, pp. 1,11 <http://www.talefoten.no/talefoten032016/index. html#/10/> [4 January 2018] “Nordstrands December 2017]

Blad”,

Noblad.No

<http://noblad.no>

[20

“Oslo Kommune”, Facebook.Com <https://www.facebook.com/ Oslo/> [2 May 2017] 57

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES

Oslo Mot 2030: Smart, Trygg Og Grønn Del 1 (Oslo: Oslo Kommune, 2015), pp. 5, 35, 38, 48 <https://www.oslo.kommune.no/ getfile.php/1374699/Innhold/Politikk%20og%20administrasjon/ Politik k/Kommuneplan/N y%20kommuneplan%202015/ Kommuneplan%202015%20del%201%20justert%2031.01.2017. pdf> [12 September 2017] Oslo Mot 2030: Smart, Trygg Og Grønn Del 2 (Oslo: Oslo Kommune, 2015), p. 27 <https://www.oslo.kommune.no/getfile. php/1374702/Innhold/Politikk%20og%20administrasjon/ Politik k/Kommuneplan/N y%20kommuneplan%202015/ Kommuneplan%202015%20del%202%20justert%2031.01.2017. pdf#page=20> [7 December 2017] “Oslokommune On Twitter”, Twitter.Com <https://twitter.com/ oslokommune> [11 October 2017] ”Paal Ritter Schjerven”, Facebook.Com <https://www.facebook. com/paal.schjerven> [25 January 2018] “Planbude: English Summary – Planbude Hamburg”, Planbude. De <http://planbude.de/planbude-planning-shack-englishsummary/> [18 September 2017] “Program | Oslo Urban Arena”, Oslourbanarena.Com, 2017 <http://oslourbanarena.com/program/> [22 December 2017] Srnicek, Nick, and Alex Williams, Inventing The Future: Postcapitalism And A World Without Work (London: Verso Kindle Edition, 2016), pp. Kindle Locations 99-100 “Stopp Ødelegging Av Nedre Grefsen”, Facebook.Com <https:// www.facebook.com/groups/579198825580154/> [12 May 2017]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Strange, John H., “Citizen Participation In Community Action And Model Cities Programs”, Public Administration Review, 32 (1972), 655 <https://doi.org/10.2307/975231> Tro Klette, Erlend, “– Forventer Dere At Vi Skal Godta Manhattan På Montebello”, Aftenposten, 2017 <https://www.aftenposten.no/ osloby/i/4pGxG/Osloborgerne-motte-byradene--Vi-fikk-absoluttingenting-ut-av-folkemotet> [21 January 2018] “Trueviewvisuals”, Trueviewvisuals, 2017 <http://trueviewvisuals. com> [9 November 2017] Tufte Haga, Kristin, “Mange Hundre På Vei Til Bydelsutvalget”, Nordre Aker Budstikke, 2016 <http://nab.no/index.php?page=vis_ nyhet&NyhetID=12561> [21 January 2018] Upmeyer, Bernd, Monu Magazine, 2015, pp. 8, 9 “Urbanplanar”, Urbanplanar, 2016 <http://urbanplanar.com> [19 September 2017] Varnelis, Kazys, Networked Publics (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2012), pp. 42, 80, 83 Wainwright, Oliver, “ Tinder For Cities: How Tech Is Making Urban Planning More Inclusive”, The Guardian, 2017 <https://www. theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/24/tinder-cities-technologymaking-urban-planning-interactive> [17 September 2017]

Appendix 1: Public interview with Reneé Tribble during the Oslo Urban Arena Conference 20th September

Question 1: Host: How can the process (of Planbude) be relevant for Oslo? Reneé: You have to facilitate all people. Use questionnaires for relevant groups or drawings for people who has a difficulty expressing themselves in writing. An interdisciplinary team is also very important because its members all have different lives, and experiences, hence the have different views and perspectives on the world and the whole process. Question 2: Host: How did you sort the massive amounts of data that you collected? Reneé: Qualitative data like drawings were analysed and the essence of the drawings extracted. Quantitative data like questionnaires examined and plotted in data spreads. Then the two types of data put together and analysed again. Importantly, the archive was always open. Question 3: Host: How did you (the people) manage to convince the municipality and the developers to listen to you? What kind of political scene is it in that area? 60

Reneé: The area is quite left wing politically so it is easier to mobilize people there. As for the politicians; they already imagined the bad consequences of the original potential development if it was to be built and then the developer followed. As for the people and participation, when there is no interest to participate – it is important to find something that would interest people, something relevant for them. Question 4: Host: Very often participation doesn’t lead anywhere. How could we change that? Reneé: In our case it is as simple as when you have the whole neighbourhood behind your plans, it is hard to ignore. Furthermore, during most new development there are an “army of desires” around them. It is important to make these visible and then they cannot be ignored.

Appendix 2: Table of contents from the Municipality Development Plan of Oslo 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2030 Part 1

Part 1 1. p.5: Introduction 2. p.8: Oslo towards 2030 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Smart, Safe and Green p. 12: Smart: Aim 1: Knowledge capital of the country Aim 2: An attractive city nationally and internationally Aim 3: Future tasks will be solved more cleverly p. 20 Safe: Aim 1: Save, open and available city Aim 2: Securtiy to get good quality municipal services Aim 3: Everybody shall have the opportunity for a good and active life p. 28: Green Aim 1: Internationally leading environmental city Aim 2: Strengthen the blue â&#x20AC;&#x201C; green/ glaucous* character of the city Aim 3: Growth through compact urban development and densification along train and tram lines. 3. p. 38: Urban development strategy 4. p. 56: Introduction to the legally binding section Additional municipality plan documents: p. 38: Legal land use elements (Part 2) p. 60: Plan maps *meaning the inclusion of greenery and water in the urban design Source: (Oslo Municipality, 2015, p. 4)

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN CITY PLANNING THROUGH NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES