WHO KNOWS BETTER: DIFFERENT APPROACHES TOWARDS PARTICIPATION
The main aim of this article is to show how architects, authorities and citydwellers consider participation in a range of widely understood city space, how they use this space and enforce their rights to it and why participants should have to professionalize their work, which was one of the main stimulants of the birth of urban movements in Poland. Prośniewski analyzes some ideas of the participation in architecture, an example of which is Giancarlo De Carlo who, together with his students, designed a medical campus at the University of Louvain (Belgium) and Lucien Kroll who was convinced that architecture can gain back its credibility only by way of participation. The article also quotes arguments of Markus Meissen, who created a conflict interpretation of the participation and stated that participation should be used in a limited amount. The second part of this article focuses on two kinds of the participation: passive and active. The first one relies on taking part in the process of planning (from making remarks to local zoning plans to multi-stage public consultations). Although formally each citizen has a right to do so, enforcing that is hard and often inefficient. That’s why citizen initiatives seem to little change this status quo. At the same time local authorities take steps towards inclusion of citizens into the decision-making process. The second kind of participation (active participation) assumes that citizens take part not only in the process of planning but hey are also engaged (in cooperation with local authorities, non-governmental organizations, architects) in realization of such projects. Active participation is shown by activities of ‘Odblokuj’ Association which developed their projects in Praga-Północ and Targówek districts in Warsaw, and Architecture Collective Assemble (their work in Liverpool was awarded the Turner Prize). Active participation is connected with spontaneous expressions by the citizens (e.g. guerrilla gardening).