“Ioannina is planning”: a participatory urban design project

“Ioannina is planning” is already a one and a half-year-old project. What exactly is this project’s focus, and how would you evaluate its journey so far?

Every day in our cities, dozens of decisions are made about public space that are not necessarily related to each other. These decisions are mainly taken behind closed doors by the authorities in charge. There are many such stories in Greek cities. The common element of these stories is the absence of citizen participation, both during planning and decision-making. This realisation was the starting point of the research project “Ioannina is planning”. The first objective was to find out how participatory processes could be integrated into the established model of local governance. And to eventually cause a small “revolution” in the field of urban planning and decision-making by local authorities. A “bottom-up” process for urban co-design has therefore been launched and is currently ongoing in Ioannina, where two participatory workshops were held, with a total participation of 150 citizens.

It wasn’t long before the second objective was added, which was to look for data on a variety of issues concerning the city. A fundamental problem with urban planning in Greece is that there is no data on how people lead their lives. The search for data feels like a lost treasure hunt. If we do not know how citizens assess their quality of life, if we lack quantitative or qualitative indicators of socio-economic, urban, and environmental performance, then our priorities are based predominantly on subjective criteria. Without documented prioritisation, planning is in constant danger of falling into a vacuum

In order to highlight the importance of data and reduce the gaps, the research project conducted three surveys with a total response of 1,574 citizens. Data has been collected and presented on issues related to the city of Ioannina, such as the number of cars and buildings we have, the age of these buildings, the span of communal green spaces, the number of public taps, the cost of living, etc.

After a year and a half of progress, a third objective was added: to mobilise citizens to claim a role in the planning, implementation, and monitoring of the public space interventions. The first steps have already been taken to create a citizens’ association, the “Commons of Ioannina”, with more than 100 applications for membership.

The public space in Ioannina is not friendly for people with disabilities and the elderly, depriving them of the independence that everyone else enjoys. Mistakes have been made, and in order to correct them, local authorities, institutions, the research community, and citizens should meet in the same place 

Could it be that participatory processes are just a fantasy? Do you estimate that they succeed in acting as a means of activating citizens?

Citizenship does not begin and end with the practice of democratic duty, meaning voting in elections. More and more local authorities dare to talk with the citizens, involve them in policy-making processes, and apply participatory procedures so that everyone has an active role in decisions concerning the area in which they live. 

In Greek cities, however, it is not a common practice, and the question is whether and how it can be achieved. If we believe that local government in Greece needs its citizens, associations, collectives, and institutions as advisors and allies in matters of urban design and administration, and if there are indeed possibilities for collaboration between local authorities and citizens, then yes, this will constitute a reform for Greek cities.

There are hundreds of examples of European cities that are reinforcing participatory planning with tangible results in shaping their cities, proving that this is not just a fantasy. However, if we remain observers once again and simply conclude that “we are far behind”, then yes, participatory processes will remain a fantasy for our cities.

So let’s move away from the traditional model of governance and let’s move forward by strengthening democracy. We have the desire of civil society to participate; we have the tools; we also have the methodology; what’s missing is to act boldly.

How would you describe the public space in Ioannina? Do citizens of Ioannina feel like personae non grata in their city? 

Like in most Greek cities, our residents are faced with an oxymoron: although they are the ones intended to benefit from the interventions, as well as the ones funding them, the local authorities do not activate mechanisms so that they can express their needs, wishes, and proposals. This results in barriers and exclusions. The public space in Ioannina is not friendly for people with disabilities and the elderly, depriving them of the independence that everyone else enjoys. Mistakes have been made, and in order to correct them, local authorities, institutions, the research community, and citizens should meet in the same place. Without this four-way alliance, the public realm will keep having barriers, and the percentage of people who feel unwelcome in their own homes will be increasing.

In the citizens’ survey conducted in Ioannina during April 2022 on the evaluation of the quality of life in a quantitative sample of 550 citizens, 16.4% of respondents said they were not satisfied with life in the city. A year and a half later, and in a quantitative sample of 420 citizens, the corresponding percentage almost doubled to 31.4%. So, yes, I can say that a significant percentage feel persona non grata in the city. To reverse the situation, and before any intervention, local authorities should get to know about the lives, difficulties, and needs of those who are or feel excluded.

In almost all Greek cities, active citizen participation is not included in the administrative plans of the local authorities. Locals are left on the sidelines; they are neither asked nor given the opportunity to participate actively and effectively

When we talk about public space, we usually think of central urban places. But citizens mainly live in the neighbourhoods. Can the “part” and the “whole” come together?

The public space functions at the same time as a meeting place, a place for knowledge, memory, culture, and, above all, the coexistence of people. Our minds go more easily to the central parts of the city, as the neighbourhoods have lost their old dynamics. In our neighbourhood’s public space, we basically just stand around; we don’t meet; we don’t talk to our neighbours. The cities’ expansion has taken the citizens away from the neighbourhood, bringing them closer to more impersonal, larger spaces, such as a central square. Even though we spend 90% of our time in our neighbourhood, we are more comfortable discussing and submitting proposals on how to make a central square beautiful and functional than discussing the problems and solutions for our own localities.

At the same time, local authorities don’t know how people live in the different neighbourhoods. To the question “which and how many are the most forgotten or most abandoned neighbourhoods/areas in Ioannina?” we do not have an answer. Well-documented answers to these questions will lead to objective prioritisation, efficient use of resources, and the mitigation of inequalities between neighbourhoods in a city. When intervention planning is based on quantitative or qualitative indicators that measure socio-economic, urban, and environmental deprivation between neighbourhoods, then the decision-making process becomes more efficient.

In Lisbon, they have been using a tool since 2011, BIP/ZIP Mapping, to identify 67 areas of the city (with a population of 150,000) that had the worst socio-economic, environmental, and urban indicators. With this tool and by following participatory processes with local communities and agencies, local authorities were able to identify evidence-based priorities for different neighbourhoods and plan interventions more effectively.

A similar mapping could be done in Ioannina too, in order to create the appropriate conditions for the “part” and the “whole” to meet again.

One final question: How do local authorities and stakeholders perceive the concept of participatory governance? Do they listen to what the citizens have to say?

I firmly believe that local authorities care about both citizens and the city, and their main goal is to improve and upgrade the quality of urban life. Some may do better than others, but the goal is the same. After all, at the end of their tenure, they all get evaluated by the citizens.

However, in almost all Greek cities, active citizen participation is not included in the administrative plans of the local authorities. Locals are left on the sidelines; they are neither asked nor given the opportunity to participate actively and effectively. All we see are superficial and brief consultations, seen more like a legal obligation than as a tool for comprehensive planning.

But we should not forget that in the “Treaty on European Union”, participatory democracy is an integral part of the European model of governance, while it defines the complementarity between representative and participatory democracy.

In this direction, let us imagine a city where the local authorities:

• seek and use data to make decisions;
• establish and generally implement participatory planning of public space, not just a la carte;
• provide citizens with the right and tools to propose and co-decide for their city.

One way to make all this wishful thinking a reality is for a “City Council” to be institutionalised and co-created by citizens, local authorities, stakeholders, and the research community. Thus, decisions will be made as openly and as close to the citizens’ as possible, and local authorities will not only listen to but rely on civil society.

There are hundreds of examples of European cities that are reinforcing participatory planning with tangible results in shaping their cities, proving that this is not just a fantasy