Collaborative planning for retrofitting suburbs

Futures 36 (2004) 471–486 www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Collaborative planning for retrofitting suburbs: transdisciplinarity and intersubjectivity in action Carole Despre´s , Nicole Brais, Sergio Avellan Groupe interdisciplinaire de recherche sur les banlieues (GIRBa), Ećole d’architecture, Universite´ Laval, Que´bec, Canada

Abstract This paper presents the transdisciplinary research program undertaken by the Interdisciplinary Research Group on Suburbs or GIRBa (Groupe interdisciplinaire de recherche sur les banlieues, in French), as well as the collaborative planning process put forward to orient the future of Quebec City’s first ring suburbs. The first section presents the research problem and its context. The next section discusses the concepts of transdisciplinary and intersubjectivity at the very basis of the group’s work and orientations. The last section describes the content of the ongoing transdisciplinary research and action program and reports on the in-progress collaborative planning process. # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This paper presents the transdisciplinary research program undertaken by the Interdisciplinary Research Group on Suburbs or GIRBa (Groupe interdisciplinaire de recherche sur les banlieues, in French), as well as the collaborative planning strategy adopted by GIRBa and its partners to orient the redevelopment of Quebec City’s first ring suburbs. Section 1 summarizes the aging process that these postwar suburbs are undergoing, as well as the relevance, from a sustainable development perspective, to favor their redevelopment over urban sprawl. It also points out the recent municipal amalgamation of Quebec City and its suburban municipalities and the favorable context it gave GIRBa to share its transdisciplinary knowledge

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-418-6562131 poste/extension 3707; fax: +1-418-6562785. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Despre´s).

0016-3287/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.004

472

C. Despre´s et al. / Futures 36 (2004) 471–486

base with relevant authorities and suggest a collaborative planning strategy to orient the future of these suburbs. Finally, it justifies why and how the redevelopment of postwar suburbs called for a transdiciplinary and collaborative strategy. Section 2 discusses the theoretical backgrounds of this approach to research, planning and design, defining what is new with transdisciplinarity research and how communicative rationality and intersubjectivity are contributing to it. Section 3 describes GIRBa’s research program and how the group has been operating for the last five years, and the ongoing collaborative planning strategy developed to produce intersubjective knowledge. 1.1. Research problem and context Quebec City’s first ring suburbs are aging, both physically and socially. Located within a 12 km radius from the parliament administrative district, they were built between 1950 and 1975 (Fig. 1). Several districts have already lost 10% of their population. The infrastructures of most streets have to be redone, including sewer and water systems, pavement and lighting. The school buildings are deteriorating and several would be scarcely populated if not for numerous children bussed in everyday from other neighborhoods at high costs. Public ice rinks, swimming pools and park equipments need to be upgraded. Furthermore, because of the low density, public transportation is difficult to operate. Car-oriented lifestyles and functional zoning have produced distinct specialized residential, commercial and industrial areas. Most public collective spaces are vaguely defined. Shopping malls and big-box retailing are commonly used to the extent where it is difficult for neighborhood services to survive. Streets are characterized by the absence of sidewalks. While single-family houses—over 50 percent of the housing stock—were generally well maintained by their owners, most rental apartment buildings need to be renovated. With the gentrification of inner-city

Fig. 1. Typical single-family bungalows in Quebec City’s first ring suburbs.


473

neighborhoods, poverty has made its way through these originally middle-class suburbs. Nuclear families represent just over 30 percent of all households who resemble more and more those found in inner-city neighborhoods in terms of people living alone, couples without children and single-parent families. In absolute numbers, there are as many elders and immigrants in postwar suburbs compared to inner-city neighborhoods. Homeowners have or are reaching retirement: a fair percentage can expect to lose their drivers’ license in the future and to suffer a lack of autonomy and mobility. The demographic growth of Quebec City’s metropolitan area is predicted to be slow for the next five years, and to stagnate and decrease from 2011 on. Despite of that, urban sprawl is continuing with its attached ecological, social and economic costs. Younger households and second homebuyers prefer third or fourth ring new residential developments to older suburbs. It is in this context that GIRBa has been working, in the last five years, at a research and action program aiming at valuing postwar suburbs and setting up the basis of a revitalization program that would preserve the perception of their low-density while favoring soft and strategic densification, as well as their quiet and green character, in the way of retaining current residents and attracting new ones in search of the ideal suburb [1]. In 2001, the provincial government announced the forthcoming amalgamation of suburban municipalities to Quebec City. The amalgamation was made effective January 1st 2002. The new city is now divided in arrondissements or boroughs, four of them covering most of the territory of first ring suburbs. Although planning, design and heritage work services have been centralized in the new city, each borough has an office composed of one general manager and three department heads in planning, community relations, as well as parks and recreation. Since the amalgamation, different authorities in the provincial, regional, metropolitan and municipal governments have been given the mandate to specify their planning orientations for their respective territory; 2004 is their horizon. This context provided GIRBa with a unique opportunity to share its transdisciplinary knowledge of these neighborhoods with governmental authorities and orient their future. 1.2. A call for transdisciplinary and collaborative strategy At the time the municipal amalgamation was announced, GIRBa had been studying these suburbs for almost five years through empirical research, action research, as well as concrete design and policy proposals (our team and work is presented in section 3.1). Aware of the opportunity to inform and influence several government authorities on the future of first ring suburbs, GIRBa designed a collaborative strategy aiming at elaborating a revitalization strategy for these suburbs.1 Why favor a collaborative and transdisciplinary planning process to inform the future of postwar suburbs? 1 We submitted our process as part of a broader research proposal to the Fond Que´bećois de Recherche sur la Socie´te´ et la Culture (FQRSC) and were granted the money which allowed us to implement it.

474


Fig. 2. Policy implications of retrofitting Quebec City’s first ring suburbs.

First, revitalizing existing suburbs calls for a higher citizen involvement than what is required when dealing with new developments. Indeed, first ring suburbs have been inhabited for 40–50 years by a majority of homeowners. These residents are attached to their neighborhood and house for specific reasons, namely the ones that made them choose a suburban community in the first place: low-density housing, quietness and greenery. Residents who chose these suburbs in the last ten to 15 years appreciate the same qualities as older dwellers but also value the central location of their neighborhood, the easy commute and access to highways, and the proximity of commercial facilities. The knowledge that these residents have of their neighborhood is important; they are the ‘‘specialists of everyday life’’ (spećialistes du quotidien, in French). Moreover, to avoid having to deal with NIMBY reactions (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) to any revitalization proposals, it is mandatory to work with residents’ uses and meanings of the neighborhoods. It is essential to survey and consult residents, elected officials and community organizers, to name just a few. Second, putting together a revitalization program that accounts for the priorities in policy development of several levels of governance necessitates involving key representatives of all concerned governmental agencies. Fig. 2 illustrates some of the multiple policy implications of revitalizing postwar suburbs.

2. Theoretical background What theoretical underpinnings have guided the transdisciplinary and collaborative approach put forward to inform and orient the future of Quebec City’s first ring suburbs? Two basic concepts permeate our work: transdisciplinarity and intersubjectivity.


475

2.1. What is new with transdisciplinarity? In what ways is transdisciplinary research different from multi- or interdisciplinary research since they all aim at embracing the complexity of social and historical reality, beyond the expertise of a given discipline? It has become increasingly evident to many scholars that the historical making and functioning of disciplinary segmentation should not be confused with the common social, spatial, politico-economical and historical reality to be observed [2]. Indeed, disciplinary segmentation appears as the outcome of the process of knowing about reality which, to operate, needs to reduce it to formal objects, that is, to define analytical dimensions. In other words, it is the outcome of a methodological reduction of reality. The sociology of knowledge and Foucault’s archeology of knowledge remind us that disciplines are the outcome of social and epistemological determinations and that they are socially produced across institutionalization and ‘‘professionalization’’ processes [3]. In this respect, scientific and academic worlds are dealing with the tension between specialization, on the one hand, and complexity of the reality to be understood, on the other hand. Interdisciplinarity came forth as the answer to the fragmentation of knowledge into disciplines. The research object being always more complex than its disciplinary representation, researchers then co-construct their research object across several disciplines. Most interdisciplinary research fits the following characteristics: 1) the object construction goes beyond a single disciplinary framework; 2) concepts from various disciplines are combined and partially translated in the research scheme; 3) methods are borrowed from various disciplines; 4) researchers with complementary disciplinary profiles are involved. This being said, on a pragmatic level, the research program might very well be confined within one discipline, or be split between two or more disciplines in almost autonomously sub-research. What is new then with transdisciplinary? The latin prefix trans-, somehow answers the question. While interdisciplinary research concerns several disciplines, transdisciplinary research implies crossing the boundaries between disciplines. It defines a mediation space between them. Our own experience of the inter- and transdisciplinarity suggests that the latter activates a mutation process within the disciplines involved, as comprehension of the research problem intensifies. If the research methods are borrowed from multiple disciplines and the disciplinary competencies of team members used to their best advantages, the definition of the research strategy and the on-going interpretation process are truly transdisciplinary. Researchers are looking for convergent interpretative schemes, for shared explanatory models based on concepts and theories that will hold together across multiple disciplinary filters. The mediation space in trandisciplinary research includes the following: 1) definition of complex research objects and problems; 2) definition of epistemological positions; 3) selection of operational concepts; 4) elaboration of the research strategy; 5) combination of research methods; and 6) construction of interpretative theoretical frameworks. On a day-to-day basis, transdisciplinary research requires a different way of conducting research. It namely calls for close and constant collaboration among co-researchers, at all steps

476


of the research program, which translates inevitably into generous mediation time and space. This is undoubtedly easier to realize when geographical distance among co-researchers is not at stake.2 This is an important consideration because transdisciplinary research is hardly possible when researchers meet once a month or exchange e-mails or telephone calls once in a while. Transdisciplinary research is frequently associated to pragmatic or solutionoriented research. Although pressing social, economic, ecological problems of all natures are often at stake in transdisciplinarity research programs, we would like to argue that it is not a mandatory dimension of the transdisciplinary process. This search for readily applicable knowledge and its impact on the constitution of research team composition and programs rather refer to a post-rationalist approach to knowledge-building, where aesthetic, instrumental and ethical knowledge are considered as valuable as scientific knowledge to inform a problem. Indeed, finding a pragmatic solution to a problem, rather than scientifically describing and interpreting it, involves some elements of uncertainty and contextuality which traditional scientific knowledge alone cannot inform. The activity of design, for instance, is about predicting what the reality will be and how it will function. Confronting, assembling and putting to work all these different types of knowledge together brings us to the concept of intersubjectivity. 2.2. Communicative rationality and intersubjectivity In his theory of communicative action, Ju¨rgen Habermas [4], advocates a new way of looking and of building rational knowledge. According to Habermas, our western societies have given too much importance to scientifically produced rational knowledge. In agreement with transdisciplinarity, he criticizes the facts that all scientific domains are subdivided into specialized fields in which experts have little contact with others disciplines, and that most exchanges and discussions about a research object are done among experts working within the same theoretical, and often methodological, backgrounds. Beyond this acknowledgement, the author contests the fact that scientific knowledge is considered nowadays as the only valid rational knowledge. He proposes to include instrumental, ethical and aesthetic knowledge as well. Instrumental knowledge refers to pragmatic knowledge, the knowledge of how to go about things. Experienced professionals, technicians or workers are generally the main channel for this knowledge. Ethical knowledge, rather, corresponds to customs, beliefs, values and past experiences which bring people to determine what is wrong and what is right on a specific issue. Citizens, elected officials are key sources for this type of knowledge. Aesthetic knowledge comprises images, and refers to aesthetic experiences, tastes, preferences and feelings that help define what is beautiful and what is ugly. Although experts can express their ethical and aesthetic position, non-experts are as skilful to do the same because they too experience everyday life 2

Although one can hope that the new information technology will make it easier in the future.


477

Fig. 3. Intersubjectivity at work in collaborative planning.

in ethical and aesthetic ways. For Habermas, cognitive rationality or scientific knowledge alone cannot explain everything. In a post-rationalist manner, he proposes that the four types of knowledge be considered science (Fig. 3). Habermas suggests giving higher importance to interaction and communication between people holding different types of knowledge. He posits that rational knowledge comes out not only of ‘‘what we know’’ but also of ‘‘how we communicate’’ it. For him, each explicit and aimed linguistic expression said by a person is full of knowledge and, starting from there, it can be criticized by an interlocutor. Capable of argumentation, stakeholders enter a process of negotiation, confronting different types of knowledge through a series of encounters. During the process, a fifth type of knowledge progressively emerges, which is more than the sum of the four others, a kind of hybrid product resulting from ‘‘making sense together’’ [5], [6]. The process by which spokesperson for different types of knowledge learn to listen and understand each other is called intersubjectivity. Activating intersubjectivity is not only a question of bringing people together and coordinating their verbalizations. It involves a difficult mediation process and a ceaseless effort of mutual understanding between different stakeholders for learning and acting [7]. Stakeholders must express their interests or views. In return, these will be discussed and criticized by other participants. Participants should meet many times to forget whom they are representing or talking for, and concentrate on the best understanding of the issues at stake. Progressively, shared meanings, diagnoses, and objectives emerge where individual interests and views are seen in different perspectives. If the process is conducted correctly, a series of consensus and agreements on the problem should be reached. What is at work is ‘‘communicative rationality’’ rather than simply ‘‘cognitive rationality’’ [8]. For planners, urban designers and architects, this implies changing the way projects are thought of and reviewing the methods and tools usually used. Among others, this implies: 1) involving all stakeholders at the beginning of the process; 2)

478


producing clear, equitable and complete reports, minutes and drawings to inform the stakeholders during the process; and 3) organizing the elaboration of a project along a chain of encounters [9]. 3. Research and action program for retrofitting suburbs In this last section, the theoretical concepts discussed above are made explicit with the work of the Interdisciplinary Research Group on Suburbs (GIRBa). Over the years, the team has developed and made operational a research and action program integrating, at its very basis, the concepts of transdisciplinarity and intersubjectivity. Transdisciplinarity has been at the heart of GIRBa’s orientation since 1997, their approach slowly moving away from interdisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity. Section 3.1 describes the research and design program. As for the concept of intersubjectivity, it is only recently that the group formerly integrated it to its work, even though communicative rationality was already operating in the group’s weekly meetings. Section 3.2 exposes the collaborative planning strategy put together to orient the future of Quebec City’s first ring suburbs, calling upon ‘‘guardians’’ of scientific, instrumental, ethical and aesthetic knowledge and explicitly building upon Habermas’ concepts of communicative rationality and intersubjectivity. 3.1. Transdisciplinary research and design Over the last five years, GIRBa has been conducting research on Quebec’s suburbs around three main lines, as shown on Fig. 4. The first axis gathers the work on suburbs’ morphogenesis, urban morphology and architectural typologies. The second one focuses on residents’ uses and meanings of dwellings, neighborhoods and broader metropolitan area. The third main line deals with policies, regulations,

Fig. 4. Research lines of GIRBa on Quebec City’s first ring suburbs.


479

ideologies, as well as planning theories and practices. The program consists of an iterative process between scientific, action and design research. The architectural and urban proposals emerging from this process are rarely considered as definite since they lead to new theoretical reflections that can, in turn, modify them. Finally, the transdisciplinary nature of the research process is part of the group’s interests. The research outcomes were recently published in La banlieue revisiteé [1]. Such premises call for: 1) team members with various but complementary competencies, 2) an original research process, and 3) a specific research agenda. The research team is composed of about 12 researchers in the fields of architecture, urban design, planning, sociology, geography, history of architecture, social work, environmental psychology and computer sciences. The team includes one professor of sociology and two of architecture, as well as one or two postdoctorate candidates, one or two doctoral candidates, several Masters’ students in sociology, urban design and architecture, as well as numerous undergraduates in architecture. If all members show an interest for retrofitting postwar suburbs, the co-directors share the conviction that knowledge about people-environment relations is essential to support design and planning. In the last few years, GIRBa has become an incubator for transdisciplinarity research, for graduate and undergraduate thesis and studio projects, and well as a training center that initiates future social scientists, architects and planners to collaborative planning and design. The team meets on a weekly basis. Each member first reports on the evolution of his or her work, without consideration for status or experience, and the group is invited to react. Discussion follows on various items according to the state of advancement of in-progress projects. Literature reviews, data collection or analysis, coding or interpretation schemes can be discussed. Technical problems, the Web site, as well as forthcoming publications, conferences, design and research grant applications or collaborative activities may be touched upon. Without reserving time and space for regular meetings, the team’s cohesion and the construction of transdisciplinary knowledge would be hard to achieve.3 Through discussions, members get acquainted and familiar with various disciplinary theoretical perspectives and analytical concepts, learn to master the jargons (or to avoid it when possible), setting the basis for intersubjectivity. Through these exchanges emerges a type of knowledge that is richer than the sum of individual disciplinary knowledge.4 3 Replacement of students to be graduated and presentation of new team members are cyclically on the agenda. One should not underestimate the importance of this renewal process for maintaining the team’s cohesion, especially in an academic context. 4 The qualitative coding scheme developed in Fall 1999, after several lengthy meetings, is an example of transdisciplinarity at work. Our first gatherings allowed, with much humor, for a series of stereotyped perceptions of professionals to be unveiled: sociologists about psychologists, psychologists about architects, etc. The team also had to find a common language. Indeed, words as simple as ‘‘social’’, ‘‘environment’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘practices’’, ‘‘representations’’ or ‘‘design’’, to name just a few, did not mean the same to all members depending of their disciplinary training. Once the respective contributions of all the involved disciplines were understood, the group started working together creatively, with more interest, efficiency and pleasure.

480


The research program is also characterized by an iterative process, favoring a constant back-and-forth between scientific research, action research and design research. The presence of researchers in architecture, urban design and planning, whose training is characterized by the development of abilities for solving multidimensional problems through design hypotheses, may account for the combination of action research and design research. These team members may have a natural tendency to integrate or translate scientific findings into design objectives, criteria and proposals and, on the opposite, to nurture the research program with reflections asking for more scientific research, and so on. Research contracts with various government offices also contribute in feeding the team with pragmatic research questions and favor action research and design as part of the research program. The research problems, objectives and strategies are in constant redefinition, taking advantage of an action-retroaction process.5 3.2. A collaborative planning process Over the years, GIRBa built up its credibility with a network of collaborators from various government agencies. In a timely manner, the municipal amalgamation was announced at a point when the group was confident in its expertise and ready to share it. Because the amalgamation called for important municipal and regional restructurations, as well as for the unification and revision of various existing planning schemes impacting postwar suburbs, it offered GIRBa a favorable context to propose and launch a collaborative strategy where scientific, aesthetical, ethical and instrumental knowledge would be put to contribution. Prior to launching the process and asking key partners for collaboration, GIRBa proceeded with what Scheekloth and Shibley [10] and So¨derstro¨m [6] call a visibility phase. The aim was to raise public awareness about the future of first ring suburbs. Publicity for GIRBa’s collective book Suburbia Revisited [1] was favorable.6 Members of GIRBa staff were asked by Quebec City’s main newspaper to write three editorials on postwar suburbs and were interviewed by other newspapers, radio and television reporters. GIRBa’s website also provided useful information. Simultaneously, a panel of key government actors from the city and various concerned ministries was informed about our work and were consulted by the group to measure interest for a collaborative planning process. Collaboration offers were frequent which allowed for key collaborators to be identified. Although the process was drafted in Summer 2002, during the visibility phase, it was officially launched in September 2002. 5

The financing of a transdisciplinary research program does not fit the disciplinary criteria typically used by granting agencies to evaluate proposals because it deviates from the established and accepted parameters of academic disciplinary research. For this reason, GIRBa counts both on disciplinary grant proposals to finance scientific research, and on partners to finance design research and action research through contracts. 6 Which was purposely written in accessible language, using as little specialized vocabulary as possible.


481

Fig. 5. Scales of governance and collaborators involved in the collaborative process.

The proposed collaborative planning process consists of an 18 month procedure involving key actors at three levels of political governance and intervention: Macro, Meso and Micro. The Macro level corresponds to the decision-makers and planners involved at the regional, metropolitan and municipal levels and whose decisions could impact the future of first ring suburbs.7 The Meso level is the borough scale. It comprises the Borough Office directors, local elected officials, as well as Local Development Centers, School Boards and Local Centers for Community Services representatives.8 The Micro level refers to neighborhood and community organizations, to the population at large, as well as specific subgroups (Fig. 5). The process comprises three main overlapping phases. The first one, the diagnosis phase, aims at reaching a shared understanding of the challenges involved in the future of Quebec City’s first ring suburbs. The second phase collectively defines general orientations and objectives for retrofitting this portion of Quebec City’s territory, as well as ideas of design, policies and programs to implement actions. The last phase consists of elaborating, through an intensive participatory design session, a redevelopment plan and strategy that reaches consensus. Each phase puts to contribution scientific research, instrumental, ethical and aesthetic knowledge through a series of encounters and workshops. These meetings give all actors involved not only the opportunity to identify and define together the problems and needs of these suburbs, but also to develop a network of contacts and influences. 7

Communaute´ me´tropolitaine de Que´bec, Re´seau de transport de la Capitale, Comite´ interministe´riel sur les orientations du gouvernement pour le sche´ma d’ameńagement de la Communaute´ me´tropolitaine de Que´bec, Service de l’ameńagement du territoire de la Ville de Que´bec, Socie´te´ d’habitation du Que´bec, Ministe`re des Affaires municipales et de la Me´tropole, Commission de la capitale nationale de Que´bec. 8 Commission scolaire, Centre local de services communautaires, Centre local de de´veloppement.

482


The Diagnosis phase was conducted during Fall 2002. At the Macro scale, GIRBa coordinated a series of four one-day colloquium and workshops (once a month) during which were identified the stakes and challenges involved in planning the future of first ring suburbs, from the point of view of the different authorities and competencies represented.9 Each gathering consisted of a half day of presentations from GIRBa and other involved partners (on relevant census data analyses, quantitative and qualitative surveys, focus group reports, etc.) to trace the most complete portrait of first ring suburbs, in both their physical and social dimensions. It was followed by a half-day workshop in subgroups, discussing and annotating maps of the new city and of the four concerned suburban boroughs. This process favored a back-and-forth process between design proposals and more theoretical reflections, as well as an in-depth knowledge of the concerned boroughs. At the Meso scale, GIRBa met each borough council separately, along with the School Boards, Local Centers for Community Services and Local Centers for Development—all together whenever possible—for a half day. The discussions allowed to identify the main stakes and challenges in each borough. A map was used to point specific buildings, streets or neighborhoods during the discussion. A one-day Boroughs’ Colloquium, where key actors of each borough presented their own diagnosis and discussed with Macro and other borough representatives, completed the diagnosis phase at the Meso scale. It also allowed for a better understanding of the interfaces between different territorial scales. At the Micro scale, the diagnosis phase should have involved key residents in the collaborative process to respect the theoretical underpinnings behind the collaborative process. However, the difficulty of identifying and mobilizing various community groups (elderly, teenagers, etc.) made it impossible given the time frame we had. With the exception of a leader from a suburban African association who was involved as a key actor from the start, as well as one focus group with singlemothers, GIRBa’s extensive survey databases were used to integrate residents’ concerns for various aspects of their environments through presentations during the diagnosis phase. At the end of the first phase, a consolidated report of all Fall meetings (including orders of the day, minutes and Powerpoint presentations) was put together in a 358 page document and handed out to all participants, in preparation of the next collaborative phase [11]. The next phase was conducted during Spring 2003. It aimed at defining, in a consensual manner, general orientations as well as specific objectives and design or performance criteria to orient the future of first ring suburbs. For this purpose, a series of four one-day workshops was planned to bring Macro and Meso representatives together (at the rate of one meeting a month). For the first session, GIRBa presented a preliminary list of orientations and objectives issued from the Diagnosis phase to initiate the discussion. Following this, five thematic discussion 9

Each meeting gathered between 30 and 50 people, including GIRBa’s members.


483

groups took place to examine specific categories of stakes and challenges: Sociodemographic, Ecological, Functional, Financial/Economic and Cultural/Patrimonial. Each group reported on their work during a plenary session, leading to comments and discussion. The next workshops alternately focused on each of the four involved boroughs. Simultaneously, at the Micro level, associations or volunteers (immigrants, senior citizens and teenagers) were met by members of GIRBa, in groups of five to ten people. Beyond organizing the focus groups, GIRBa was responsible for summarizing the diagnosis established collectively at the Meso and Macro levels, as well as for identifying citizens from the represented groups who could act as key actors in the next phase of the collaborative process. An interactive Web site was launched in Summer 2003 to inform and survey a fair segment of the population, namely young families with children who show a high rate of Internet connection. An Internet survey was included to test the relevance of some of the issues, design or policy proposals discussed by Macro and Meso actors. The focus group reports, as well as the results of the Internet survey were analyzed during Summer 2003 and presented during Phase II final workshop, in September 2003, to make a final revision of the orientations, objectives and solutions for action and design. A second consolidated report was handed out to all participants during that session. Phase III of the collaborative planning process corresponds to the Elaboration Phase or Design Charrette. Over two or three days, key actors identified at the Macro, Meso and Micro levels will attempt to collectively and consensually elaborate a redevelopment plan for Quebec City’s first ring suburbs. This step is planned for mid-fall 2003. Key experts and actors, identified by GIRBa during Phases I and II, will elaborate concrete urban proposals, with clear indications on the actions to take. At the moment of writing this paper, it is not clear if GIRBa will act as the voices of numerous citizens for reporting their concerns and suggestions. Several concerns and difficulties have first to be resolved: 1) it could be difficult for several citizens to be available for two or three consecutive days; 2) because they would enter the process in Phase III, some residents might be in an asymmetrical power relation with some Macro and Meso actors; 3) there might be simply too many categories of residents to get involved for such a large project. We hope to invite as many interested and/or visionary citizens as possible. Following this activity, GIRBa will prepare a final report based on the recommendations and proposals defined in Phase III. All individuals and groups involved at all levels will be given a copy of the report and will have the possibility to use it to orient the future of first ring suburbs, in their claims, designs or actions. The final report is planned to be distributed in March 2004. GIRBa’s own Web site will also be used to disseminate the final results. Fig. 6 summarizes the one-and-a-half-year process. 3.3. Assessment of mid-term achievements Bringing together actors with various expertise and work profiles at the Macro and Meso levels has, so far, been so far rich and fruitful. Most people are showing

484


Fig. 6. Phases of the collaborative process developed by GIRBa to define orientations, objectives and proposals for the redevelopment of Quebec City’ first ring suburbs.

enthusiasm and are happy to come back to the next meeting. Actors have learned to know each other and to forget the authority they are representing. The process is enriched not only by the contribution of the various participants but from their co-presence, producing a unique and distinct knowledge. More than halfway through the process, some factors that contributed in making this collaborative planning process possible and productive can be identified. First, it is obvious that the post-amalgamation context and the multiple planning exercises required from several government instances at the regional, metropolitan, municipal levels made it easier for GIRBa to convince the different authorities to allow the participation of key representatives in the proposed collaborative planning process. In other words, there was a favorable context. Second, the publication of Suburbia Revisited, summarizing five years of transdisciplinary research and design on postwar suburbs, was timely and contributed to our credibility. Furthermore, our status as an academic research entity, neither working for the government nor for the citizens, placed us in a comfortable position to propose and orchestrate a collaborative planning strategy. Also, different visions for the new city between the central administration and the suburban municipalities remain important and make GIRBa if not a neutral ally, an interesting mediator. Finally, we are financed by our own research funds, independent from any particular interest group. Second, the creation of the new city gave way to a round of musical chairs among municipal employees (fonction publique municipale, in French). It also


485

impacted several organizations namely the four local development centers which were amalgamated. Our collaborative process allowed professionals from municipal, health, local economic development, as well as professionals assigned to new functions to exchange about the reality of their (often new) territory of action. In this respect, these meetings acted not only as a mediation space between tenants of different types of knowledge but also as a meeting and training space for newly assigned professionals. Even within a single ministry or borough, participants said they rarely have the opportunity to discuss with colleagues of other divisions. Last but not least, GIRBa operates in a most transparent manner, favoring the circulation of information. Indeed, each meeting leads to a detailed report. When completed and accepted by all participants, it is made available to all partners at the Macro, Meso or Micro levels, allowing to record and share the reflection as it moves toward a progressively shared understanding. Although this procedure is certainly made easier with the help of electronic mailing and Internet, one should not underestimate the energy required by such a diffusion process: 1) the minutes are written by at least two members of GIRBa for cross-examination; 2) each report is completed and sent to partners for corrections and approvals; 3) the corrections are integrated and the final version sent to participants. All documents produced through the collaborative process are available to the public on GIRBa’s Web site. 4. Conclusion The case study reported in this paper illustrates how transdisciplinarity and intersubjectivity have been integrated into an academic research program and collaborative planning strategy aiming at informing the future of postwar suburbs. At the moment of writing these lines, the collaborative planning process is still on its way and will be completed in December 2003. In this respect, the final conclusions are yet to come. This being said, GIRBa’s work has been rich and fruitful so far. The combination of transdisciplinary research program and collaborative planning strategy both produced thorough knowledge, in a post-rationalist manner. Together, they have allowed for a better understanding of the complexity of suburban settings, of the challenges facing them and, most of all, of avenues for action. We are currently undertaking a new set of academic research whose purposes were uncovered through the process. Finally, GIRBa’s work exemplifies how universities can play a critical and essential role in training professionals and researchers to work together providing beyond their specific disciplinary competencies.

Acknowledgements The reflections presented in this paper are the outcome of transdisciplinary and intersubjective work among GIRBa members. More specifically, the authors would like to thank Genevie`ve Vachon, Andreé Fortin, Thierry Ramadier, Nik Luka,

486


Alexandra Daris, Daniel Lacroix, Se´bastien Lord, Dominique Morin, Me´lanie Be´dard, Martin Bussie`res, Caroline Cloutier, Mireille Campagna, Luc-Fre´de´ric Gilbert, Vickie Desjardins and David Paradis who all contributed in bringing these ideas to maturity. In addition, they would like to thank all the participants who took part in the collaborative process described above. References [1] A. Fortin, C. Despre´s, G. Vachon (Eds.), La banlieue revisiteé, Nota Bene, Que´bec, 2002. [2] J.-M. Berthelot (Ed.), Presentation, Sociologie et Socie´te´s, 31(1) (1999) 3–10, Special issue on interdisciplinarity. [3] J. Duchastel, D. Laberge, La recherche comme espace de me´diation interdisciplinaire, in: J.-M. Berthelot (Ed.), Sociologie et Socie´te´s 31(1) (1999) 63–76, Special issue on interdisciplinarity. [4] J. Habermas, Theórie de l’Agir Communicationnel, Fayard, Paris, 1981. [5] J. Forester, The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1999. [6] O. Soderstrom, Traduire l’usage, in: O. Soderstrom, et al. (Eds.), Pratiques et projects. Analyser les pratiques sociales et concevoir le project architectural et urbain, Payot, Lausanne, 2000. [7] P. Healey, Collaborative Planning, McMillan Press, Houndmills, United Kingdom, 1997. [8] S.S. Fainstein, New directions in planning theory, Urban Affairs Review 35 (4) (2000) 451–478. [9] J.E. Innes, Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal, Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (4) (1996) 460–472. [10] L.H. Scheekloth, R.G. Shibley, Placemaking: The Art and Practice of Building Communities, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1995. [11] GIRBa (Ed.), Volet Participatif—Automne 2002 et Hiver 2003: Recueil de Comptes Rendus et de Pre´sentations, Ećole d’architecture, Universite´ Laval, Que´bec, Canada.