Reimagining Urban Leadership
Cities rarely behave the way we want them to. Urbanist William Whyte illustrated this in the 1980s when he studied the behaviour of park-goers in New York. Despite planners carefully arranging chairs in unique and novel ways, people instinctively moved them around to suit their own needs. Similarly, the worn paths we see cutting through park lawns are not part of the original design — they are “desire lines,” revealing the routes people naturally choose, rather than those intended by urban planners. This highlights a fundamental truth: how we plan and design a space often doesn’t align with the way people truly live and move through it.
As a PhD candidate in urban and regional planning, I have been delving into this disconnect between intention and execution. There’s often a chasm between what urban planners envision and what is actually realized. Many plans, no matter how meticulously crafted, remain unfulfilled, leading to a cognitive dissonance between our aspirations and the final product, and contributing to frustration and disappointment from the broader community. Despite their best efforts, planners often find that the systems they work within do not operate the way they had hoped. In many prairie cities, the plans and strategies drafted by urban planners often end up collecting dust on forgotten shelves, never to be revisited.
John Forester, a key figure in the study of power and its influence on the practice of planning, famously noted that “If planners ignore those in power, they assure their own powerlessness.” This statement underscores a vital point: urban planners are not merely neutral technicians but are embedded in complex political environments. They should aim for more than just managing permits and enforcing processes — they should be agents of change, actively challenging the status quo. Yet, not every planner sees themselves in this role. This raises the question: What is the true role of a planner in a city? And more specifically, in Edmonton?
Planners, no matter how skilled, can find their work stymied by organizational constraints, and even the best plans can falter when political and economic realities intervene. As we approach another election year, much attention will be focused on elected officials, yet we should also consider the questions we ask of the city builders who work within administrative spaces. While decision-making may rest with politicians, it is within the administration and public-private partnerships where expertise and leadership traverse election cycles. These city builders — planners, administrators, architects, and engineers — wield significant influence and should not only be part of the conversation but should lead it.
In 2018, I moved to Edmonton for this very reason. While my hometown of Winnipeg was bogged down by a decades-long debate over the infamous Portage and Main intersection, Edmonton’s planning landscape was thriving. Administrators and planners were shaping the discourse, pushing boundaries, and driving urban change. I was drawn to this energy and eager to learn what enabled such leadership among Edmonton’s city planners. What inspired them to push through and make urban transformation possible?
That question led me to consider: what makes planning in Edmonton different from Winnipeg? In Winnipeg, planners often feel powerless, constrained by municipal government structures. In contrast, in Edmonton, planners seemed to embrace their role, actively pushing for change and progress.
Through my research, I attempt to understand the role of central figures like planners in prairie cities such as Edmonton and Winnipeg. Drawing on Timothy Rowley’s social network analysis theory, I have discovered that planners are either commanders, compromisers, subordinates, and/or solitarians, and each play different but vital roles in shaping the urban narrative.
Commanders, often the public face of planning, have the power to initiate dialogue, shape the direction of planning efforts, and guide the process. Compromisers are the peacekeepers, helping resolve conflicts and facilitating compromise among stakeholders. Subordinates, though less visible, provide support by listening and synthesizing the concerns of both the public and officials. Solitarians are the researchers and analysts, offering clarity and detailed knowledge that can guide more informed decision-making. Together, these diverse figures form a web of influence, creating a robust environment for urban change.
How can we, and should we, make space for these diverse players? And is Edmonton’s planning environment still supportive of innovation and leadership? Understanding and creating room for all types of city builders is essential to successfully plan and shape our cities. It enables us to adapt and adjust our plans as cities evolve and as people shape their communities. This approach empowers planners, working within diverse constraints, to discover their authentic voice and influence, foster collaboration, and understand the significance of their work in driving meaningful change. It encourages creativity within our administrations, opening pathways for transformative action. Moving forward, I believe that embracing the complexity of governance and acknowledging the varied roles of city builders is key to shaping the future of our urban landscapes.
Jason Syvixay is Vice President of BILD Edmonton Metro, and a PhD candidate in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Alberta.
The post Reimagining Urban Leadership appeared first on Canadian Architect.