Abstract
This article makes a chronological tour of the main city-making models, from classic to current times, to arrive at the conclusion that citizen participation in decision-making processes on urban projects has ended up conditioning the current working models of the territory, particularly in terms of urban production. Despite the inconsistency between what the broad body of knowledge on cities (Lexis) establishes for the development of citizenship and the often defended and cited citizen rights, and the practice (praxis) of participation, we find that processes that are promoted as being inclusive and with a collective work approach end up becoming, either through omission, lack of knowledge, inexperience or despotism, models that conceal hierarchical power structures and that deny urban equity and justice in public space projects.
Highlights
Theoretical contextThe urban project emerged initially in the contemporary era as a comprehensive approach towards urban regeneration, at a time when some of the main guiding principles of critical and projective thought on urban planning were born, in the context of the post-war periods of the mid-20th century
A substantial part of this body of knowledge focuses on the study of the city in the contemporary era, but especially following the rapid industrialization process that took place during the 19th century, when the most paradigmatic city reform and growth plans emerged and which have become the foundations for subsequent urban planning models
The public space is the venue par excellence for the establishment of relationship between the city and its citizens, the space where the various actors coexist, and where synergies should presumably exist between the aspirations and projections of both parties
Summary
The urban project emerged initially in the contemporary era as a comprehensive approach towards urban regeneration, at a time when some of the main guiding principles of critical and projective thought on urban planning were born, in the context of the post-war periods of the mid-20th century. The fact that the city of the 20th century was unable to consolidate all the intentions set forth in the documentary and instrumental base was due to the various wars that took place, the anomie of political representation and systems of government, the predominance of the private over the common good, inadequate development and implementation of strategies aimed at consolidating certain practices from a globalized perspective of cities, all of which have in some way run against social justice and urban balance In this regard, sanitation problems in industrialized cities and the largely unfinished urban plans were confronted with the new tenets of architecture and city planning. The urban centers that were furthest removed from the financial, administrative or service centers were the ones with greatest deficiencies and problems
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
