Lorenz Feichtinger

This master’s thesis explores the implementation of more informal participatory planning forms based on the Copenhagen project “Fælledby”. 

This study critically examines „Fælledby“, a flagship urban development project in Copenhagen, to explore the role of power in participatory urban planning. The research aims to advance the theoretical understanding of public participation by adopting a holistic and relational perspective on power, recognizing the interconnectedness of different scales within the planning process. While existing literature on urban co-production implicitly addresses power by identifying it as a key factor in both causing and explaining the ‘participation gap’, i.e. the discrepancy between the theoretical ideals of public involvement and its practical realities, few studies explicitly engage with power in participatory planning. 

Inspired by a Foucauldian understanding of power, this study places power at the core of its empirical analysis. Within this, the study applied a qualitative case study approach to investigate a contested participation process regarding the development of a new neighborhood on a green public space in Copenhagen. Through semi-structured interviews and document analysis, the study reveals that macro-level power structures in the city severely restricted the scope for participation, enabling powerful actors to manipulate the micro-level process to advance broader interests. 

The key finding is that these actors, operating within institutionalized ‘invited’ spaces of participation, leverage macro-level resources to outmaneuver opposition, thereby shaping outcomes in their favor. This suggests that institutionalized participation is fundamentally constrained by power dynamics embedded in the broader urban system. Based on these findings, the study provides new insights into the theoretical conceptualization of public participation in urban planning, advocating a shift from institutionalized to non-institutionalized spaces of participation, which can better balance power asymmetries. It also recommends moving away from consensus- toward conflict-driven approaches, as powerful actors are able to co-opt input to impose a manufactured ‘consensus’. 

Future research should explore ways to implement this agonistic approach in practice, particularly by integrating informal spaces of participation into the planning process.