From Collecting Opinions to Increasing Understanding
Article by Moona Tikka, founder of Studio Field
Living in a city inevitably means encountering diverse people – and learning to understand, accept, or even tolerate them. Different people attach different memories, feelings and stories to the same places. A park that is important to me may evoke unpleasant memories in others or perhaps encourage some to spontaneously celebrate. This multiplicity is precisely the beauty of cities. They are networks of socially, culturally, and historically layered spaces, woven together with intertwined memories that offer their residents a wealth of experiences.
Tommi Laitio (2024) uses the term convivencia to describe this practice of accepting and sharing urban space – of living together. Laitio describes convivencia as a friction between harmony and conflict. Conflict rarely gives birth to anything new and does not provide fertile ground for interaction. Due to the diversity of lifestyles, views and cultures, real harmony would hardly ever be possible in an urban space, and if we strive for harmony in an urban space, it always means that someone uses power to the exclusion of others, according to Laitio. Accepting the friction related to the division of urban space is essential in the development of equal cities. (Laitio, 2022). A city that reflects many voices invites both designers and residents to broaden their understanding and embrace multiple, overlapping realities.
Urban planning is still often thought of as an expert-oriented process, where technical know-how and education are at the center. The information of the planners is often understood as “real information” or facts, while the experience-based information of the residents is easily considered as opinions. This causes a confrontation where public discussion about urban planning does not arise or it remains very superficial. Planners’ concern that residents may not grasp the complexity of planning, technical constraints, or conflicting goals is understandable. Urban planning does require broad expertise and the ability to coordinate complex systems. At the same time, however, it is also true that the lived experiences and everyday observations of the residents tell important things about the city’s functionality, comfort and sense of community.
In order to value resident information, it is good to understand the multiplicity of information. In her article on cultural mapping, Pia Hovi (2021) presents four types of information. According to Hovi, there is information which
Is known to everyone
Only known to experts
Only known to residents
Not yet known to anyone.
In this view, knowledge of a certain area is not valued by who holds it; rather, all forms of knowledge are different and should be considered equally in planning. Information is also collected in different ways. Lived everyday life gives rise to a deep understanding of the urban space, social networks, ways of moving and memories attached to the area. This experiential knowledge is valuable, but it cannot be accessed if residents are only offered limited channels of participation, such as opinion polls or traditional hearings, where views are collected as detached comments. In order to achieve socially and culturally more sustainable cities, we should move from collecting individual opinions towards building a common understanding.
Whereas planners may doubt the residents’ understanding of the complexity of planning, the residents themselves often look at the city only from their own, personal point of view. It is natural to defend one’s daily life and personal needs, yet it is equally important to recognize that one’s own experience of the city is not the only valid one. Instead of focusing on asking “what do you want?”, residents should be challenged to think about broader, important questions for the community: What does this area and its community need? What would be fair considering all the users of the residential area? Such a perspective shifts the discussion from individual desires to shared responsibility and broader understanding.
In order for residents to take a stand from the point of view of the entire residential area, they must be provided with sufficient information, time and tools to form considered and reasoned views. This idea is also supported by the concept of deliberative planning. In the deliberative process, “equal citizens get to participate in negotiating decisions in a process where they argue for their positions and receive all information related to decision-making openly and transparently” (Niitamo & Sjöblom, 2018).
Resident panels are one form of deliberative, knowledge-based participation that fosters deeper understanding. In deliberative residents’ or citizens’ panels, participants are offered a wide range of background information from various experts. They then have time to familiarise themselves with the topic before the discussion begins. The panel is facilitated in order to have equal, guided discussion where different points of views are considered. As a result of this process, the jury can present jointly formulated recommendations or proposed measures on the matter under consideration. In Finland, deliberative citizens’ panels have been organised in connection with freedom of speech, climate and environmental policy, and at the regional level in connection with traffic and the future, for example. The new city strategy of the City of Helsinki mentions the use of resident panels as a way to develop pleasant, communal neighbourhoods. (City of Helsinki, 2025)
At the heart of resident panels lies the act of listening to many voices. Participants, selected through random sampling, should reflect the diversity of the region or city so that a wide range of experiences, values, and life situations can enrich the discussion. This ensures that the final results are truly relevant to the wider community.
The purpose of the residents’ panel is not to seek consensus, on the contrary. Differing views in a pluralistic setting are not conflicts to be resolved, but signs that a subject is being seen from many perspectives and life experiences. When successful, this kind of convergence of different perspectives enriches the discussion and brings out dimensions that might otherwise go unnoticed and which, in a good case, add creativity and new thinking to the discussion (Laitio 2024).
Recommendations or action proposals based on a multi-voiced discussion are more sustainable and effective than solutions based on the views of only one population group. When the activities of the residents’ panel are communicated openly and transparently, it also increases the acceptability and trust of decision-making even among those who have not themselves been involved in the process. The deliberative panel thus supports sustainable and fair decision-making, where the different parties feel that they have been heard.
The implementation of proactive residents’ panels in urban renewal areas such as Meri-Rastila, for example, could also enable a broader public debate on urban planning. What kind of urban space and life do we envision for Meri-Rastila’s renewal? Will every voice be heard in the planning, and will the streets still reflect all forms of life after the transformation? By deepening dialogue among residents and fostering mutual understanding, we also practice convivencia—the art of living together.
Author:
Moona Tikka is an urban researcher and urban designer. She is the founder of Studio Field, which specializes in participatory and culture-oriented urban planning.
Vokal commissioned the article as part of the art and research project Geography of Memories (Muistojen Meri-Rastila). The text was featured as part of the final exhibition of the project and published in Finnish as part of the project publication. More about the project: vokal.fi
References:
City of Helsinki. (2025) Helsinki josta voimme olla ylpeitä. Esitys kaupunkistrategiaksi 2025–2029. https://www.hel.fi/static/helsinki/kaupunkistrategia/Helsinki-strategiaehdotus-2025-2029.pdf
Hovi, Pia. (2021) Taiteilijat yhteisöjen kulttuurikartoittajina. Teoksessa Vahtikari, Tanja;
Ainiala, Terhi; Kivilaakso, Aura; Olsson, Pia & Savolainen, Panu (toim.), Humanistinen
kaupunkitutkimus (s. 253–282). Vastapaino.
Laitio, Tommi. (2022) Learning Grounds for Conviviality https://publicinnovation.jhu.edu/learning-grounds-for-conviviality/
Laitio, Tommi. (2024) Six Principles of Convivencia.
Niitamo, Annaliina & Sjöblom, Jonas. (2018). Verkkokeskustelut kommunikatiivista suunnittelua edistämässä: Lisää kaupunkia Helsinkiin -Facebook-ryhmä kaupunkisuunnittelun kumppanina?. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu, 56(2), 31–59.
https://journal.fi/yhdyskuntasuunnittelu/article/view/77666