“Some kind of agency”: Participatory planning and urbanism through the eyes of the 2010–20s generation of Russian urbanists

This article presents a comprehensive study of the perception and conceptualization of participatory design practices among Russian urbanists belonging to the generation of its rapid institutionalization (2010s–2020s). This period, marked by the emergence of federal programs such as the “Formation of a Comfortable Urban Environment” and the “Competition for the Improvement of Small Towns and Historical Settlements,” shaped a new generation of professionals for whom citizen engagement became an integral yet problematic imperative. The empirical foundation of the research consists of 21 in-depth biographical interviews with informants from various professional backgrounds (architects, urban activists, sociologists, urban planners, etc.) working in both commercial and public sectors, with and without formal specialized education. One of the study’s key findings is the identification of a fundamental internal conflict within the professional self-consciousness of contemporary urbanists. The authors identify and describe two conflicting images of the profession: “urbanism-asscience,” striving for universal, transferable knowledge and solutions, and “urbanismas-practice,” focused on specific, unique, and context-dependent cases. This duality, theoretically framed through the concepts of “multiplicity” (Annemarie Mol) and the “division of worlds” (Bruno Latour), permeates all aspects of the respondents’ worldviews. The research demonstrates that, despite a unanimous recognition of the necessity of participatory design, there is a consensus lack within the community regarding its definition, methodology, and boundaries. This generates internal contradictions in responses to questions concerning gender equality, the role of municipalities, and the agency of citizens. Urbanists find themselves in a position where they are forced to simultaneously act as impartial experts (a “mouthpiece for facts”) and active political actors mediating diverse interests. Thus, the work reveals profound ideological and practical tensions that define the landscape of contemporary Russian urbanism.

1. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), 216–224. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

2. Glazychev, V. L. (2005). Inner Russia: 2000–2002. Moscow: Novoe izdatelstvo. (In Russian).

3. Kiianenko, K. V. (2019). The circle of local knowledge and its segmentation in architecture theory. Academia. Arkhitektura i stroitelstvo, 2019(3), 44–50. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22337/2077-9038-2019-3-44-50

4. Latour, B. (2025). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Moscow: Ad Marginem. 319. (In Russian).

5. Mol, A. (2017). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Perm, Gile Press. (In Russian).

6. Murunov, S. (2019). Social engineering or participatory in manipulation. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/38580853/Sotsial’noe_proektirovanie_ili_souchastie_v_manipuliatsiiakh (In Russian).

7. Sanoff, G. (2015). Democratic design. Participation case studies in urban and small town environments. Vologda: Proektnaia gruppa 8. (In Russian).

8. Sanoff, H. (2010). Democratic design: Participation case studies in urban and small town environments. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM.

9. Savel’ev, M. V., Unagaeva, N. A., Fedchenko, I. G. (2021). Features of the formation of open public spaces in Krasnoyarsk in the zone of influence of cultural heritage sites. Tomsk State University Journal. Culturology and Art History, 2021(42), 135–157. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17223/22220836/42/12

10. Stas’, I. N. (2024). Multiple urbanism and its description languages. Gorodskie issledovaniia i praktiki, 9(4), 6–21. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/usp9420246–21

11. Trubina, E. (2022). Thirty years of academic urban studies in Post-Soviet Russia: Between fundamental and applied. New Literary Observer, 2022(6), 125–145. (In Russian).

12. Vagin, V. V. (2016). Theoretical aspects of the development of initiative budgeting in Russia. Finansovyi zhurnal, 3(31), 105–114. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22337/2077-9038-2019-3-44-50

13. Vereshchagina, E. I. (2021). Participatory design: Features of the approach in Russia. Gorodskie issledovaniia i praktiki, 6(2), 7–25. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/usp6220217-25

14. Zamiatin, A. (2021). For Democracy: Local politics against depoliticization. Izdatelskie resheniia. (In Russian).