context & rationale  

Internal and External Analysis 

From internal and external sources, we can assemble a historical perspective on the recent development of the citizen engagement process in London. London has traditionally been known as a somewhat conservative city, with a civic culture dominated by business sector interests that were also the driving force behind the city’s economy. However, beginning in the 1990s, London was hard-hit by the restructuring of the continental and global economies, with key employers (such as those in the manufacturing and insurance industries) greatly reducing their presence in the city.
This economic shock necessitated a reinvention of London’s economy and civic identity to adapt to the new knowledge economy. Early attempts were hampered by the absence of the assets needed to guide policy and civic identity, including multi-sectoral networks, civic participation, and community coordination. In the absence of these processes, political disagreements between different interests only deepened moving into the 2000s. This came at the time of the “new localism” which envisions cities as major economic, social and political actors with far greater agency than had previously been assumed. Faced with further challenges, such as the 2008 Financial Crisis, these ideas had the opportunity to take hold in London with the further development of increased civic engagement efforts. Over the past decade, these efforts have culminated in a series of major community focused initiatives including the Community Economic Road Map, Back to the River and The London Plan.

Nevertheless, the development of new modes of civic governance in London has not been without its challenges. The challenges faced by London’s planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) provide a clear example of this. Also evident is continued resistance from the business community to new modes of civic engagement, such as in the case of The London Plan. This plan outlines an ambitious future agenda for the city and is based on extensive community engagement. However, it has been delayed by extensive appeals, mainly from the development community.

Presentations in class further provided insight into recent developments in the City of London’s consultation processes. There has been increased recognition of the limitations of public hearings, as these events tend to attract a NIMBY demographic unrepresentative of the wider population. Further, hearings on contentious issues are often lightning rods for controversy, while engagements on other topics are ignored. This has led to new developments designed to increase overall citizen engagement as well as gaining a more holistic image of what the community wants. Social media, with its ability to reach a wider range of demographics, represents an incredible opportunity in this regard. However, it is not perfect, and it is important to consider which demographics have greater access to online spaces and which do not.

Many novel strategies were pursued in the conduct of ReThink London, the consultation process connected with planning for London’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. For this process, the City sought to make consultation a major public event, bringing in famous CBC host Peter Mansbridge to kick off the process. This succeeded in garnering public interest with something appealing and conveying to them why the process was important. The city also deliberately held consultations with different groups. For example, in partnership with the citizens group Women in Politics, the City specifically held consultations for women. These hearings raised concerns and considerations specific to women that would not otherwise have been heard in the consultation process.

Recommendations/Key Observations

Key Takeaways
As rapidly as COVID19 has changed our world, mutated and evolved to our biological, social, and political defenses, so to have the wicked problems facing City leaders. It may seem as if the progression is a slow one but in the grand scheme of human presence on earth, it is abundantly clear now the many failures of Western social and political structures as they play out on a global and localized scale. From the climate crisis, to poverty and food insecurity, homelessness, racial inequalities, gender disparities, and democracy itself, the world is in a state of utter chaos demanding new methods of civic engagement in the democratic decision making process if we are to ensure the future success and sustainability of democracy and the institutions in place to carry-out decision making in urban settings.

These complex challenges are faced not just by governments alone, or citizens, or even by one sector, they are collective challenges that involve multiple stakeholders with diversity in voices, perspectives, and lived experiences and require buy-in/personal investment from all groups.

There is a heightened awareness from citizens that traditional methods are failing so there exists an expectation that they will be able to engage and participate in these matters that affect their daily lives; matters such as transit, economic recovery, affordable housing, sustaining the downtown core etc. With this heightened scrutiny, governments need creative, accessible, and equitable ways to engage with citizens to ultimately legitimize decisions made by Urban Planning departments. Without that legitimacy, our institutions continue to lose credibility amongst civilians, further devaluing the decisions made by local leaders, and widening the gap between democratic institutions and the people they represent. Average citizens are currently unaware of or disenfranchised by current methods for engagement in the planning process – a barrier – which is indicative of the traditional colonial structure of top-down hierarchical governance in most cities, London too. But there is hope, and there is evidence to support such hope. For the last two decades dozens of cities across the US and Canada have adopted a new way of strengthening democracy; an innovative model that engages citizens in the planning process and legitimizes the decisions of the democratic institutions charged with planning safe, equitable, and prosperous cities for future generations. That model – Citizens Planning Academies. A model engaging citizens in the process of urban planning with co-construction, education, and accessibility at the core.

With significant examples of success laid out for the City of London in areas such as Baltimore, Maryland ‘s Planner Academy, Ann Arbour, Michigan, The City of Alexandria, Edmonton, Alberta, Horry South Carolina, Wake Forest North Carolina, and Calgary’s Partners in Planning program, there is reason to believe that such a process, if well planned, can be implemented in a city like London that is ready to turn “talk into action” with regards to participatory planning.

Additional research suggests there are credible models and evaluative methods in use that address gaps and barriers to civic participation, take into account the unique challenges of locality, and ensure citizens of all demographics are able to access the tools required for helping direct the future of their community.

There comes a time in every generation where the very fabric of social cohesion and future possibility is put to the test and this is that time. As Greta Thunberg said, “our house is on fire” and while she refers specifically to the climate crisis we currently face, there are parallels to be made across all wicked problems and the institutions charged with putting out the fires. It is in these moments of great challenge and change that the human spirit and ingenuity finds new ways to transform, grow, and move forward. That moment where transformation is needed to quell the chaos and build a brighter, sustainable path forward, beginning at the local level, right here at home in London, ON. A new way forward to strengthen democracy from the ground-up. Now is the time to prioritize the putting into place of frameworks that allow for a more collaborative approach to solving our collective problems and putting out the fire. To avoid another travesty that our own community saw in the failure to bring plans like BRT into fruition.

Risks and Mitigations 

Can such a process stumble? How can the gap in people’s understanding be prevented?
History of exclusion?

As we are aware, Black and Indigenous individuals have not been treated fairly by Canada’s government or its citizens throughout history. London still ranks in the top 5 cities in Canada for hate crimes,. Indigenous people have even been persecuted more recently in history as the last residential school was closed as recent as 1997. The fact that these things occurred may cause minorities to falsely believe the government thinks of them as “second class citizens”, and the fact that hate hate crimes still occur in modern day London creates a false perception that minorities are not welcome. It is necessary for municipal leaders in london to rid london of this undertone and speak out against hate crimes to show minorities that their presence and opinion is valued and in fact matters

Another mitigation to creating more civic engagement in London and making it more diverse would be the lack of knowledge about opportunities for individuals to express their opinions. Right now the levels of awareness and engagement with regards to municipal projects and developments among citizens, especially the black and indigenous communities, are much lower in relation to the amount of white individuals involved in city planning and political leadership. This inevitably creates an environment that caters more to serving interests of white communities and interests, not because people are actively trying to make the planning procedure biased but because white people, or any group, is more likely to be informed about issues that affect and relate to their community than a community they do not spend time in.

One risk to getting more minorities involved in city planning with regards to informing people where and how they can share opinions that relate to city planning and have their voice heard is the financial aspect. As I stated earlier, it will likely take targeted advertisement to increase awareness about municipal matters in minority communities. Advertisement that actually generates legitimate awareness and gets noticed by significant amounts of people generally will generally cost you money. These are things such as TV commercials, Radio advertisements, and paid social media posts that appear in people’s news feeds. If funds are not raised for these types of advertisements we risk getting a far lower level of exposure among all citizens which includes minorities.

Another thing that could potentially hold us back from diversifying the ethnic groups that are partaking in city planning is the fact that non white individuals are significantly under-represented amongst positions involved with civil service and political leadership within the city of London. Given that they are under represented it could lead the people in these communities to believe that is it not worth sharing their opinion as they believe white leaders are inevitably going to act in the interests of white individuals. To shift this perception London as a city could mandate that, as long as individuals are qualified with the correct credentials, certain amounts or percentages of civil servant employees must be Black, Indigenous, or another minority. By civil service employees I mean people who are employed by municipal government agencies such as police, firefighters, waste management workers as well as anybody else who is paid by the government to perform a public service.