202 Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/ Heft 4

Urban projects, sustainable development and participatory democracy.Opportunities and limitations Introduction to the special issue

Jean- Bernard Racine, Lausanne

Contemporary geographers generally conceive therange of territories and landscapes as an expressionof a dialectical relation between the social and thespatial; the result of human shaping of the environ¬ment in accordance with a project stemming from aset of values and traditions, as well as cultural, social,and political attitudes. In short, these spaces are seenas products of the ideology in which each society isgrounded. Ultimately, geographers see the world asbeing the expression of the way societies use theirfreedom and geography as the study of the conditionsthat make possible the concrete and collective realiza¬tion of such freedom, taking historical, natural, socialor institutional constraints into consideration.

Through its system of direct democracy, referendumsand initiatives, Switzerland, for example, appears tooffer its citizens a great amount of such freedom. Acloser look, however, shows that this system of directdemocracy is largely conditioned and even manipu¬lated by agents that completely elude ordinary citizens,most notably when it comes to transformations thataffect the places they live in. « Participatory democ¬racy » has thus emerged in the last few years as a com¬plement to « representative democracy » supported bythe 1980 Federal Law on Land Management.

This thematic issue builds on the two notions of par¬ticipatory and representative democracy and inter¬prets them through a critical examination of diverseexamples of urban participatory democracy. Refer¬ring to the example of Switzerland again, Swiss lawstipulates that authorities should « ensure that thepopulation can adequately participate in establishingplans » own translation) Loi sur laménagement duterritoire LAT, art. 4, al. 2). As Zuppinger 2008: 29),a Lausanne urban planner, rightly points out in anarticle on the role of participation in the institutionalcontext of land management in Switzerland, this stip¬ulation could mean many things: « according to juris¬prudence, participation can mean inform, consultor substantially involve citizens in finding solutions »

own translation).

Nonetheless, following trends to be seen in urbandevelopment in Switzerland, it would appear that thelegitimacy of urban governments depends on theirability to define new stakes, a new style of public

action and a means of governing through the par¬ticipation of citizens in urban projects Söderströmet al. 2000; Söderström 2007). The suitability of theparticipation process as a means of achieving a localconsensus in the invention and production of urbandevelopment is critically examined herein, particu¬larly with reference to its ability to link quality oflife to social balance under the very general label ofurban sustainable development. Besides institutionalactors, citizens and professionals, such as geographers,architects, consultants and cultural programmers, sev¬eral new actors have joined the participatory process.This thematic issue is therefore composed of a seriesof contributions from a wide range of specialists whobear witness to recent developments.

In the commentaries at the end of the issue, a remark¬able recent publication by Jean- Pierre GaudinGaudin 2007) is briefly presented. In his book,

Gaudin examines the participation process fromthe perspective of democracy and sovereignty. Inparticular, he questions whether participation is asuitable solution to political crises. As a researcherwho specializes in public policy analysis, he is able tosubstantially introduce the concept by recasting itsemergence within the context of its origins and byclearly interpreting circumstances of the more recentexpansion of multiple and diverse references. Theserecent references all refer to democratization, or itsstrengthening, between the space of political) repre¬sentation and participatory representation, i. e. «rep¬resentative democracy and participatory democracy»Gaudin 2007: 94).

Gaudin also questions the extent to which participa¬tory democracy and representative democracy cancoexist, and even reinforce each other. Can thesetwo democratic modalities be considered at the samelevel? Is a hybrid form conceivable? Can bridges bebuilt and knowledge be shared between the two? If so,under what conditions, by whom and how? Accordingto what modes and norms, to what aim, at which scale

neighborhood, city? What are the risks associatedwith such participation? Underlying all these ques¬tions is yet another: is what is being witnessed actualpotentiality or mere democratic make- believe. Basedon examples from Switzerland, France and otherneighboring countries, several states in the USA, likeCalifornia, and in particular, Brazil, Gaudins bookemphasizes that the discussion cannot be conclusivedue to the diversity of contexts.

Urban projects, sustainable development and participatory democracy Jean- Bernard Racine 203

The results and discussions presented in the articlesin this issue reflect different purposes. They are eitherpart of doctoral dissertations in geography SébastienJacquot in Angers and Antoine Fleury in Paris), stemfrom recent geographic research Paul Villeneuve,University of Laval in Quebec) or result from majorcritical research on behalf of municipalities Jean-Yves Toussaint city planner and Sophie Vareilles

engineer from the National Institute of AppliedSciences in Lyon). Despite this difference in purpose,the articles allow a transversal, interdisciplinary, andinternational comparison of a series of experimentsfrom France, Switzerland, Italy, Scotland, and Chile.

Thus, according to the sociologist, Matthias Drilling,sustainable urban development appears to build onboth the valorization of public spaces and on majorarchitectural and urban projects. He links participa¬tion to a particularly relevant theoretical frameworkby looking at urbanization regimes, conceived as formsof long- term coalitions which inspire actors to investresources and competences in local networks. Use ismade of examples of sustainable neighborhoods inGeneva, Lucerne and Basel. The examples includeparticularly innovative projects in areas such as waste¬lands and unused railway grounds, and by integratingstart- ups into sustainable goals. Such projects are inno¬vative in three ways: context sensitivity, integration ofminorities as well as adherence to sustainable devel¬opment principles.

All of these interdisciplinary examples feed the active,prospective and imaginative reflection among urbangeographers. Ultimately, they bear witness to theextraordinary conceptual and theoretical richnesslinked to the process and evolution of both humanrepresentations and understanding of human urbanpractices. With reference to public spaces and localdemocracies in Paris, Fleury shows how a new urbanculture has progressively taken root, and how what waspreviously considered a mere circulation space, a tech¬nical and functional object, is now a « public space »a mediation space, a vector of social life, a space ofvalues, indeed, a « public landscape » and a symbol andsign of urban culture. He highlights how a relationshipwas established between a public- space crisis and ademocratic crisis. He argues that such crises may beresolved by turning to a participatory process to allowa mobilization of civil society. Such a mobilization evi¬dently calls for the realization of certain conditions toensure that the interests of the majority are met.

According to Jacquot, participation is a polysemiccategory of public action. Jacquot argues that thenew tools of citizen participation in urban policies arelinked to the emergence of a new « participatory para¬digm » He explores whether the different manifesta¬

tions of participation refer to what he terms «urbanregulation within the context of urban and heritageprojects » own translation). Jacquot offers two, onthe surface strikingly different, examples to under¬lie his argumentation: Genoa and Valparaiso. Hisanalysis of modalities of collective action integratedinto public action bring him to similar conclusions asGaudin: one of the major questions stemming fromthe process is that of project legitimacy and the abil¬ity to formulate projects so that participation aims atallowing citizens to influence urban land management.He compares two categories of participatory pro¬cesses: those conducted by public authorities, imply¬ing a prior definition of land management principles,and those stemming from opposition processes. Heargues that a plurality of expertise and an axiologicdimension are necessary for participation to influencepublic policies.

Who profits from concertation? Jean- Yves Toussaintand Sophie Vareilles, from the National Institute ofApplied Sciences in Lyon respond as follows: « Can wethink of it in a relevant and useful way? » own trans¬lation). Thus they formulate a doubt that the conceptcan be looked at in a relevant and appropriate way.The article carefully explores concertation in projectsaimed at requalifying urban public spaces, profitingfrom an insider perspective of experiences made inLyon. It presents a critical typology of the concerta¬tion tools used in Lyon, in terms of communication,knowledge and implication, gauged on the basis ofannounced democratic promises. They highlight thatdespite the good faith of those they call «manufactur¬ers of tools who, taken together, build urban infra¬structures » i. e. « the technical and spatial tools ofthe city » own translation), despite the good faith ofthose citizens who participate in the process, despitethe increase in interaction between these two sets, anddespite all the effort taken to ensure real participationand influence of citizens,

« within this social and political order use of an infrastruc¬ture is not the aim of production; it is its consequence.From this perspective, objects are not made necessary bytheir use; rather, objects impose a use and may even definepossible uses through their functioning. It is this subordi¬nation of use to function that makes concertation neces¬sary » own translation).

In other words, successful urban concertation wouldbe tantamount to the completion of a project withoutany opposition from the public or with their partialor total adhesion. « Concertation conceived of as thetaking into consideration of use has as its main aim theperformance of management » own translation). Thisis so because « the meaning given by users to manufac¬tured objects eludes manufacture » own translation).The article argues for concertation to be considered

204 Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/ Heft 4

as a subordination of urban use to urban form. In theprocess, urban action is instrumentalized. This obser¬vation is documented both in terms of the argumentssupporting it and of the empirical observation of dis¬course and practice. Concertation thus appears to be« counter- productive in terms of urbanity and moregenerally of civility » own translation), in that it seeksfirst and foremost the performance of the constructionprocess. This is a far cry from the freedom proclaimedby the concept.

Nevertheless, can participatory urbanism, or at least thegeneralization of public debate, be seen as an elementof sustainable urban development? The former Presi¬dent of Canadian Geographers, Paul Villeneuve, andhis young colleagues, Catherine Trudelle, MathieuPelletier and Florent Joerin, ask this questionwith reference to central neighborhoods in the city ofQuebec. Over the last few years, these neighborhoodshave become places for experimenting with urbanand citizenship debates. Consequently, the city targetsprojects that aim at strengthening the new urbanity ofthe provincial capital. The process is simple, albeit origi¬nal and new: to identify and relate indicators capable ofhelping researchers to evaluate co- variations betweenlevels of urbanity and the vigor of development par¬ticipatory and public debates at the level of neighbor¬hoods. Urbanity is defined by demographic growthand degree of gentrification, the latter being defined asthe differences in land income between suburban andcentral neighborhoods. Vigor of debates is measuredthrough an analysis of press coverage of conflicts andcontroversies. Thus, use is made of a quantitative modeland qualitative arguments. The conclusion is drawnhere that the political process is more important thanpurely economic mechanisms, related, for instance, tothe nowadays classic rent- gap hypothesis. The authorsemphasize though, that the effects of local democrati¬zation together with this process of public consultationcould be questioned by the elitist regime of governancethrough projects that have been taking root under thenew city administration.

What about Lausanne? The « Métamorphose »project: giving citizens a voice

In 2008, the municipality of Lausanne put together acommittee in charge of the very complex «Metamor¬phosis » project, a project approved by the popula¬tion following a test in representative democracy, acentral element of the 2006 legislature. The author ofthis article was one of those committee members. Theproject followed a major poll on the needs and hopesof the population that had been conducted within theAgenda 21 process and explicitly targeted sustainabledevelopment involving the population.

Upon signing the Aalborg Charter in 1998, the Lausannemunicipality pledged to implement a sustainable devel¬opment program through its Agenda 21. With this inmind, politicians and members of think tanks looselylinked to mostly green and left- wing members of thecity legislature, encouraged the municipality to initi¬ate a first participatory process, termed « Quartiers 21»« Neighborhoods 21 » and presented as a model of

partnership governance. More than 1 000 people par¬ticipated in the process, and in each neighborhood citi¬zens had the opportunity to formulate their wants andneeds on a variety of topics. The process was dividedinto three phases: innovation workshops, consensus¬building conferences and finally, an assessment by thecity authorities.

The goal was therefore to let ordinary citizens voicetheir desires. The citizens were given no particulartraining in the topics that were being discussed, thediscussions were carried by their manifest interest andtheir active and reflexive will. The project had its limits.Participants were not necessarily representative of thepopulation, neither in terms of age and origin, nor interms of years spent in their neighborhood. More¬over, the number of participants declined as the pro¬cess entered its second phase consensus-building.The goal of this phase would ultimately eliminatepotentially interesting contradictions and innovativeideas. Technically and legally, the process suffered mul¬tiple flaws Racine 2006). This first experience none¬theless brought to light a series of needs: learning howto live together, accommodation, sustainability andsecurity. These results were analyzed in light of moretheoretical imperatives stemming from the familiarityof members of the municipality and their services withthe literature, as well as imperatives of density, mixity,proximity and mobility, and, most notably, the urbandevelopment orientation deemed necessary in termsof public transit.

The Metamorphosis project is structured aroundfour highly related and complementary componentsRacine 1999, 2007, 2008). One of these meets the

urgent need to deal with the apartment crisis thataffects the city, by planning a new neighborhood inthe low- density northern part of the city, in what iscalled the Blécherette plateau. This neighborhood isdefined as having « great environmental value » andmeets the criteria of an ecologically and socially sus¬tainable development. To allow its construction, the1954 Olympic Stadium currently in bad shape anddifficult to renovate needs to be torn down. The new« eco- neighborhood » includes more than 2 500 apart¬ments and fulfills standards of density and mixity, bothin terms of social and intergenerational characteristics,and functional mobility and proximity. In connec¬tion with the new neighborhood, a new public transit

Urban projects, sustainable development and participatory democracy Jean- Bernard Racine 205

line following the recent M2 subway line is planned.The new line is to be financed to maximum 40% bythe Federal Government. Sports infrastructure is tobe modernized and further developments targeted athosting both small, popular events and major eventsare planned in the northern part of the city. New infra¬structure is also foreseen for the southern part of thecity a new football stadium and an Olympic swim¬ming pool, the latter being on the waiting list of the« Olympic Capital » for many years. All these projectsare to be made possible through public- private part¬nerships and through their integration into a large,coherent, and balanced most notably in financialterms) urban project.

What remains unknown is how this new urban projectwill become part of a mostly crystallized urban his¬tory, and what spatial and socio- political dynamics areto be expected, considering that until recently theyhad seemed rather lethargic. It may also be assumedthat the proposed model is likely to create new prob¬lems as it solves current problems. This can alreadybe seen in the at times violent reactions of residentschallenging different components of the project, bethese relocation, creation, or participation. A com¬munal initiative, launched by a group of residents andsupported by a few specialists, was aimed at preserv¬ing the interests of the Northern part of the city Thisgroup not only opposed the project right from thebeginning, but also refused to participate in the pro¬cess by systematically boycotting any initiative relatedto it. The consequence was that the professionals wereforced to work on the project alone and the authori¬ties had to modify the modus operandi. Thus, the rel¬evance of cooperation between expert and layman isquestioned.

A different Metamorphosis? An ambiguouscontestation

Metamorphosis was meant to be tailored to eachparticular project whilst simultaneously initiating amajor development and redistribution of the sportsinfrastructure and creating an eco- neighborhood withhigh environmental value, linked to the creation ofa new public transit backbone. The project was thuscontributing to further city densification. It also chal¬lenged several well- entrenched habits and socio-affec¬tive valorizations of a whole neighborhood because itentailed the demolition of an Olympic Stadium thelast one of its kind in Switzerland and of urban her¬itage status. As initial major geographic options weredeclared « non- negotiable » some inhabitants decidedto boycott the participatory process. A communal ini¬tiative was thus launched a first in the Vaud canton),inviting citizens to reject the project and proposing

a « different Metamorphosis » one that would keepthe sports infrastructure in the North and build theeco- neighborhood in the South. The ensuing theo¬retical and practical debate was long and harsh andaddressed various issues: geographic, social, economicand related to urban planning.

Supporters of the municipalitys project saw in theiropponents reaction a traditional suspicion towardschange, and a NIMBY Not In My Backyard) attitude;the opposition was an issue of identity, a failing to dis¬tinguish between an object and its function as the oldstadium, although a « monument » was often deserted);opposition in general was seen as a failing to under¬stand the benefits of the project. Opponents expressedconcerns over the public- private partnership, thusmisunderstanding the fact that surface rights given bythe city and fiscal revenues would actually benefit thecity. Opponents argued that a « ghetto » or a «bedroomsuburb » was being built and called for greater atten¬tion to mixity and public infrastructure. However, theyseemed to oversee the criteria inherent to the develop¬ment of an eco- neighborhood with the need not onlyto adhere to ecological principles concerning con¬struction materials, energy, waste, and transport, butalso to pay attention to solidarity, social, generational,cultural, and functional mixity, as well as a set of prin¬ciples related to well- being, culture, conviviality, andheritage conservation. Opponents reactions were alsoshared by right- wing parties, the Green party and afew geographers and urbanists who did not agree witha shift of the city from the North to the South.

It should also be recognized that for those who livenear the Olympic Stadium, the stadium is more thana stadium; it is a « monument » experienced as part ofheritage and invested with a true identity, in spite ofall its drawbacks, such as an alarmingly ageing struc¬ture, a lack of VIP zones and a albeit excellent fieldsurrounded by a track that separates the public andthe players. According to Wunenburger 1997: 204),this effect of the stadium on its neighborhood wouldbe an example of « spatial cognitive meaning » owntranslation). The concept refers to the existence of anaffective and emotional relation to space i. e. the way alandscape, a city, and the image of it « is felt, is chargedwith emotions, and initiates feelings » own translation)Bochet & Racine 2002: 128; Bochet 2007: 255), the

city initializing something in its inhabitants which res¬onates in them, an affective phenomenon, ultimatelyan effect of the world on their sensitivity.

On September 27, 2009, the citys population finelyapproved the project. 55,7% of the voters rejected thealternative proposed in the communal initiative, analternative that would have left the project bereft ofits geographic and urban planning meaning. The entire

206 Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/ Heft 4

process provided a unique opportunity to criticallyand strategically reflect on the way to lead an urbanproject and solve possible contradictions between rep¬resentative democracy and participatory democracy.

The battle of opinions was a reminder that a city is aliving system, an evolving space that constantly needsto be reinvented. Mutability means giving urban spacethe ability to change not only in usage and function,but also in meaning. This is an underlying principle ofintelligent urbanism. After a period of urban develop¬ment that stretched to the citys limits, Lausanne expe¬rienced a period of a « return » to the city, a return thataimed at its transformation, not only at its renovationand restoration. The ambition of this transformation isto create new urban configurations based on existingstructures, in an ecologically and socially sustainablefashion. Cities are not checkerboards but shifting archi¬pelagoes of appetite. In spite of the difficulties inher¬ent in the cooperation between expert and laymanGaudin 2007: 67), developing forms of population

involvement in progressively improved participatorydemocracy Blondiaux 2007; Felli 2005, 2006; Racine2009; Söderström et al. 2000; Söderström 2007; Tous¬saint & Vareilles 2006) may convince people thatcities are the solution, not only the problem.

BibliographyBlondiaux, L. 2007): La démocratie participative,envers et malgré tout. Un plaidoyer paradoxal enfaveur de linnovation démocratique: In: Mouve¬ments 50: 118- 129Bochet, B. & J.- B. Racine 2002): Connaître et penserla ville: des formes aux affects et aux émotions, explorerce quil nous reste à trouver. Manifeste pour une géo¬graphie sensible autant que rigoureuse. In: Géocarre¬four, Revue de géographie de Lyon 77, 2: 117-132.Bochet, B.( 2007): Débat ville étalée ville compacte:la réponse des projets lausannois. In: Revue Econo¬mique et Sociale 65: 95-108.Felli, R. 2005): Développement durable et participa¬tion: la démocratie introuvable. In: Belgeo, Revuebelge de géographie 4: 425-619.Felli, R. 2006): Développement durable et démocra¬tie: la participation comme problème. In: Urbia, LesCahiers du développement urbain durable 3: 11-28.Gaudin, J. P. 2007): La démocratie participative.Paris: Armand Colin.Racine, J.- B. 1999): Lausanne entre flux et lieux. Vousavez- dit « moyenne » In: Commerçon, N. & P. George

eds): Villes de transition. Paris: Anthropos: 147- 186.Racine, J.- B. 2006): Shaping future together. Partici¬patory research and methods for a socially sustainableurban development. Lessons from the participation inAgenda 21 in Lausanne. In: Lois Gonzalez, R.C.ed.): Urban changes in different scales: systems and

structures. IGU Commission on Monitoring Cities ofTomorrow, Cursos e Congresos, no. 169, Santiago deCompostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela:223-236.Racine, J.- B. 2007): Les villes en quête durbanité:logiques économiques et sociales. Quelle ville voulons¬nous? In: Revue Economique et Sociale 65: 25-34.Racine, J.- B. 2008): Projet urbain et démarche par¬ticipative: contribution géographique à la possibilitéde choisir sa ville aujourdhui, quelques leçons delexpérience lausannoise. In: Bulletin de la Sociétégéographique de Liège 50: 5-15.Racine, J.- B. 2009): Città e democrazia partecipata: lenozze tra esperto e profano. Riflessioni sul possibilecoinvolgimento del sapere geografico. In: UTETUniversità ed.): Le frontiere della geografia. Testi,dialoghi e racconti per Giuseppe Dematteis. Novaraet Milano: De Agostini: 129-144.Söderström, O., Cogato Lanza, E., Lawrence, R. J.& G. Barbey sous la dir.) 2000): Lusage du projet.Pratiques sociales et conception du projet urbain etarchitectural. Lausanne: Payot.Söderström, O. 2007): A Genève et à Lausanne onconsulte ou on négocie, mais à Zurich on co-construit.

In: Le Temps, 5 juin 2007, rubrique Opinions.Toussaint, J. Y. & S. Vareilles 2006): La durabilité àlépreuve des pratiques daménagement urbain. Le casde la concertation dans lespace public de laggloméra¬tion lyonnaise. In: Urbia, Les Cahiers du développe¬ment urbain durable 3: 61-75.Wunenburger, J.- J. 1997): Philosophie des images.

Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Zuppinger, U. 2008): La participation dans le foncierdans laménagement du territoire. In: Urbia, LesCahiers du développement urbain durable 6: 27-42.

Summary: Urban projects, sustainable developmentand participatory democracy. Opportunities andlimitationsThis special issue introduces different texts on urbanparticipatory democracy, a topic that has recentlygained much momentum. The issue allows a transver¬sal, interdisciplinary, and international comparison ofa series of experiments from France, Switzerland, Italy,Scotland and Chile. The examples show sustainabledevelopment to be as much an element of the valoriza¬tion of public spaces as of major architectural and urbanplanning projects. The introduction focuses on a criticaldescription of ongoing projects in the city of Lausannewhich bear testimony to the effect citizen participationin urban project development can have in defining newstakes, a new style of public action and a way of govern¬ing. This process of participation can lead to a process ofcooperative construction of the environment. The arti¬cle closes with an examination of the ambiguities andflaws inherent in participatory democracy.

Urban projects, sustainable development and participatory democracy Jean- Bernard Racine 207

Keywords: participatory democracy, urban projects,participatory urbanism, public spaces, Paris, Lyon,Edinburgh, Genoa, Valparaiso, Basel, Lausanne

Résumé: Projets urbains, développement durable etdémocratie participative. Intérêt et limitesIntroduisant lensemble de ce numéro thématiqueau titre de « guest editor » lauteur présente les diffé¬rents textes quil a pu réunir autour de la thématiqueaujourdhui très tendance dans les villes occidentalesde louverture à la démocratie participative en matièrede projets urbains. Il sagit là dune façon de permettrela comparaison, dans une vision transversale, inter¬disciplinaire et internationale dune série dexpérien¬ces portant aussi bien sur la France, la Suisse, lItalie,lEcosse et le Chili. Les exemples sappuient tant surla valorisation des espaces publics que sur des réali¬sations architecturales et urbanistiques importantes,toutes conçues dans les perspectives du développe¬ment durable. La présentation in fine du cas lausan¬nois, en cours de réalisation, témoigne également dela capacité à définir de nouveaux enjeux et un nou¬veau style daction publique, comme méthode de gou¬vernement, par le management de « projets urbains »ou « projets de ville » conçus en collaboration avec lespopulations concernées et visant, à la limite, par ceturbanisme pratique la réalisation dun véritable pro¬cessus de co- construction des espaces de vie. Nouveaumode de faire la ville, lurbanisme participatif nestpourtant pas sans ambiguités et sans faiblesses, ceque larticle tente de mettre en évidence de manièreréflexive et critique.

Mots- clés: démocratie participative, projets urbains,urbanisme participatif, espaces publics, Paris, Lyon,Edinbourg, Gênes, Valparaiso, Bâle, Lausanne

Zusammenfassung: Urbane Projekte, nachhaltigeEntwicklung und Partizipationsdemokratie. Nutzenund GrenzenAls Gast- Herausgeber des vorliegenden Themenhef¬tes stellt der Autor verschiedene Texte zum Thema derstädtischen Partizipationsdemokratie vor, ein Thema,das in letzter Zeit grosse Aufmerksamkeit auf sich zieht.Die Beiträge ermöglichen einen transversalen, interdis¬ziplinären und internationalen Vergleich einer Reihevon Erfahrungen aus Frankreich, der Schweiz, Italien,Schottland und Chile. Beispiele nachhaltiger Entwick¬lung gründen sowohl auf der Aufwertung öffentlicherRäume als auch auf massgeblichen architektonischenund urbanistischen Projekten. Die Einleitung fokus¬siert auf einer Beschreibung aktueller Projekte in Lau¬sanne, die von der Fähigkeit zeugen, neue Ziele, einenneuen Stil öffentlicher Aktion sowie eine Regierungs¬weise, die durch die Partizipation der Bürger bei derEntwicklung urbaner Projekte gekennzeichnet ist undmöglicherweise zu einem Prozess kooperativer Kon¬struktion der Umwelt führt, zu definieren. Partizipa¬tionsdemokratie ist jedoch nicht frei von Mehrdeutig¬keiten und Schwächen, die dieser Beitrag auf reflexiveund kritische Art aufzuzeigen versucht.

Schlüsselwörter: Partizipationsdemokratie, städtischeProjekte, partizipatorischer Urbanismus, öffentlicheRäume, Paris, Lyon, Edinburg, Genua, Valparaiso,Basel, Lausanne

Prof. Dr. Jean- Bernard Racine, Faculté des Géoscien¬ces et de lEnvironnement, Amphipôle, Université deLausanne, CH- 1015 Lausanne; Avenue du Grey 16,CH- 1004 Lausanne, Switzerland.e- mail: Jean- Bernard. Racine@ unil.ch

Urban projects, sustainable development and participatory democracy : opportunities and limitations : introduction to the special issue