Introduction

The focus of this issue is on the ethics of co-design, while relaying US perspectives on critical thinking and the practice of public participation, engagement or consultation, and the collective or marginal involvement of communities in decision-making on matters related to the design of neighbourhoods they live in.

A group of residents of the same area is not necessarily a community. They might have diverse backgrounds and interests, different values and beliefs. What mostly defines a community is a shared sense of place, the love for their home location that turns a simple geographical postcode into a place with which they identify. This shared identity defines the community as a social unit. And undoubtedly, communities welcome and want to get involved with what happens in and to their neighbourhoods, with when and how change happens, with what impact and what disruption to expect but, ultimately, how can their neighbourhoods become optimal, successful, positive places to live in.

Planning systems all over the world make different claims on how to include the public in the decision-making process. From mere consultation to more participatory or engaged activities, the public is less or more involved in (mostly) ratifying pre-empted decisions and proposals. In the UK, the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG 2023) sets plan-making and the planning system as a platform for local people to shape their surroundings (MHCLG 2023, 8), where plans should be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement (MHCLG 2023, 8). It positions communities in the heart of decision-making, but it is still rather vague on policy or guidance on how, exactly, engagement is shaped, actioned and checked, and it is remiss of mentioning collaborative methods of plan-making. These, in practice, are often known as collaborative events, whether community-based, design-led or where other, similar co-production terminology is used. Co-design is the focus of Pablo Sendra’s paper The ethics of co-design, which leads this issue and has sparked much interest amongst scholars, practitioners and communities. Sendra’s paper aims to go beyond definitions and the legal or statutory requirements of the process itself, to focus on the much needed ethics of the procedure. Ethics are the principles that guide us to make a positive impact through our decisions and actions. In a co-design process it is rather critical to define these principles at its outset, so all participants share the same level framework. Sendra identifies six principles to an ethical co-design process, and proposes a 10 commandment Charter. Idealistic or ambitious these might be, embracing these into policy would certainly lead to happier, more fulfilled communities and ultimately, to the co-creation of more successful places.

The commentaries that follow Sendra’s writings showcase the state of flux and (in)definition around co-design events and experiences, and the principles that guide diverse examples of co-design like processes – they are all accounts of the contributor’s first hand experiences and feelings.

We hear, firstly, from the community examples: in Alton Action, where the shared co-creation of a community vision for the Alton Estate People’s Plan has proved transformative for residents to feel empowered to participate, collaborate, contribute and to learn (Robertson 2024, 23); followed by how the Westway Trust and The Community Street project would fit in the practical implementation and implications of the Six Principles for Co-Design proposed by Sendra (Laurent Belson 2024, 25) in order to inspire reflections on the Charter for Co-Design’s future development. Subsequently, the Granville Community Kitchen project, where the power dynamics were not shared as expected or advertised, leading to the frustration of the participants (Leslie Barson 2024, 30), calls for the need for humanisation of housing projects. The final community example, from Oakland Shoreline Leadership Academy, relays the positive relationships and stronger sense of belonging emerging from the practical application of ethical co-design principles, where inclusive participation can transform and empower communities (Katticaran 2024, 32).

Commentaries and experiences from US scholars then follow, reminding us of Sherry Arnstein's (1969) writings on participatory planning and its ladder of citizen participation, and the US experience of design charrettes where the community could be engaged in the true spirit of co-design (Banerjee 2024, 36), as experienced by Jonathan Barnett’s practice, although he does warn that however well-informed and enabled the collaborative decision-making might be, the leading role in the urban design process must remain with an urban design professional (Barnett 2024, 41), thus somehow unbalancing and defeating the power dynamics advocated in the Sendra’s visionary Ethics and Charter for Co-Design.

This issue is completed with Rob Cowan’s inspired book review on a topical and seminal publication: Engaged urban pedagogy: participatory practices in planning and place-making.

I hope you enjoy this issue as much as I do, it is encouraging to read about co-design at the forefront of community interests and involvement and the collaborative work of urban design scholars and practitioners. And, if our readers will further the development and implementation of ethical co-design practices, we can aspire to see many happy and successful places coming to fruition.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).