Speaker
Description
Introduction
The rapid urbanization of the 21st century has compelled urban planners to rethink traditional planning paradigms and seek innovative, flexible approaches to manage growing urban challenges. Cities face increasing pressure to adapt to climate change, social inequalities, and evolving mobility patterns. In this context, tactical urbanism has emerged as a grassroots-driven, low-cost, and rapid method for testing urban design interventions and mobilizing community participation. Characterized by temporary projects—such as parklets, pop-up bike lanes, or street closures—tactical urbanism offers an agile alternative to lengthy bureaucratic processes (Lydon & Garcia, 2015).
Despite its grassroots appeal and increasing uptake by municipal governments, tactical urbanism often remains isolated from formal urban planning frameworks. This disconnect risks reducing tactical urbanism to a series of isolated, ephemeral gestures that fail to deliver lasting change. The need to better understand how tactical urbanism can be integrated into long-term urban planning has therefore gained prominence among scholars and practitioners alike.
[picture_1]
This research explores the institutional, procedural, and community engagement factors that enable or constrain the integration of tactical urbanism projects into formal planning processes. Through comparative case studies in Barcelona, Toronto, Berlin, and Portland, this study contributes empirical evidence and conceptual insight into the strategic potential of tactical urbanism as a bridge between grassroots innovation and formal governance.
By examining how cities can move from short-term interventions toward durable urban transformation, this study addresses a critical knowledge gap. The research also engages with the broader discourse on adaptive governance and participatory planning, which emphasizes the importance of flexibility, inclusivity, and co-production in contemporary urban policy.
Background and Conceptual Framework
Tactical urbanism, also known as „guerrilla urbanism“ or „pop-up urbanism,“ encompasses a broad spectrum of temporary urban interventions designed to improve livability, promote sustainability, and activate public spaces (Finn, 2014). The core idea is to „do while planning,“ using temporary, reversible actions to test new ideas and gather real-time feedback from users. This contrasts with conventional urban planning, which often operates on long timelines and fixed plans.
The literature on tactical urbanism reveals tensions related to legitimacy, scale, permanence, and equity. While tactical projects can democratize urban space and foster community ownership, they can also be co-opted by private interests or confined to affluent neighborhoods, raising critical questions about inclusivity and power (Douglas, 2016; Finn, 2014). Moreover, the temporary nature of such interventions, while useful for experimentation, can limit their impact if not connected to durable planning strategies.
To analyze tactical urbanism’s role in contemporary urban planning, this research draws on three key theoretical domains:
Adaptive Planning Theory: Emphasizing flexibility, resilience, and learning-by-doing in planning processes, adaptive planning challenges rigid, linear planning models and supports iterative, feedback-based approaches (Davoudi, 2012; Innes & Booher, 2010). Tactical urbanism fits within this paradigm by encouraging experimentation and adaptation, allowing cities to respond more effectively to uncertainties and emergent challenges such as climate change and demographic shifts.
Participatory Planning and Co-production: Highlighting the role of community engagement in shaping urban futures, participatory planning theories argue for collaborative decision-making and knowledge co-production between planners, citizens, and other stakeholders (Healey, 1997; Faga, 2006). Tactical urbanism offers a vehicle for embodied participation beyond traditional consultation methods, allowing communities to trial and shape urban space with immediate feedback loops.
Urban Governance and Institutional Change: Focusing on governance structures, power relations, and institutional dynamics, this body of literature informs understanding of how tactical urbanism can be institutionalized or resisted within formal urban systems (Pierre, 2011; Legacy, 2017). It is crucial to consider how power asymmetries, municipal bureaucracies, and political will shape the adoption or rejection of tactical urbanism practices.
This triangulated framework facilitates a multi-dimensional assessment of tactical urbanism’s potential to reshape planning institutions and practices, balancing grassroots innovation with governance realities.
Methodology
A qualitative, comparative case study design was selected to explore tactical urbanism across different political, cultural, and institutional contexts. The four cities studied—Barcelona, Toronto, Berlin, and Portland—were chosen due to their active tactical urbanism scenes and varying governance structures, enabling comparative insights.
Data Collection
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 key informants, including urban planners, community activists, municipal officials, and project coordinators. These interviews explored motivations, institutional settings, participation practices, and perceived outcomes of tactical projects. Interview questions probed perceptions of tactical urbanism’s legitimacy, scalability, and inclusiveness.
Document analysis examined strategic urban plans, municipal policy documents, and project reports to understand how tactical urbanism features in official agendas, legal frameworks, and funding priorities.
Field observations provided direct insights into the nature, implementation, and reception of selected tactical interventions, focusing on user behavior, community interaction, and immediate spatial changes.
Data Analysis
Interview transcripts and documents were coded thematically using NVivo software. Analytical themes were developed both inductively from the data and deductively based on the conceptual framework. The comparative approach enabled identification of common enabling factors and challenges, as well as context-specific dynamics. Constant comparative methods ensured rigor and validity.
The methodological design aimed to capture both the micro-level dynamics of tactical projects and the macro-level institutional contexts, providing a holistic understanding of integration processes.
Case Studies Overview
Barcelona: Superblocks as Institutionalized Tacticalism
Barcelona’s Superblocks (Superilles) initiative represents a notable example of tactical urbanism evolving into a core component of city planning. Initially launched as small-scale, temporary street closures to reduce traffic and increase public space, Superblocks have been scaled and formalized as part of Barcelona’s broader mobility and climate resilience strategies (Mueller et al., 2020). This institutionalization has been facilitated by a strong political mandate, cross-departmental coordination, and sustained community involvement.
The Superblocks reduce vehicular traffic within defined blocks, reallocating space for pedestrians, cyclists, and social activities. This shift has demonstrable health benefits and fosters local economic revitalization. Importantly, the program includes extensive public consultations, transparent communication, and iterative adjustments, which strengthen community buy-in.
However, challenges remain around balancing neighborhood disruption during construction phases and ensuring equitable distribution of benefits across the city. Some residents have voiced concerns about traffic displacement and accessibility. Barcelona’s case illustrates how tactical urbanism can transition from temporary trial to embedded policy instrument, though not without complexity and negotiation.
Toronto: Pop-Up Parks and Participatory Experimentation
Toronto’s „Open Streets TO“ program exemplifies tactical urbanism as a participatory tool for reimagining urban space. Temporary street closures, pop-up parks, and community events activate neighborhoods and foster social interaction. Despite enthusiastic community reception, interviewees noted the absence of clear pathways to formal zoning changes or infrastructure investment. This limits the potential for tactical projects to influence long-term planning outcomes (Micallef, 2015).
Toronto’s decentralized governance system and multiple bureaucratic layers contribute to challenges in scaling tactical projects. Nonetheless, community organizations leverage tactical urbanism to advocate for permanent changes, using data and feedback from temporary interventions as evidence.
Toronto’s experience highlights tensions between grassroots energy and municipal bureaucratic inertia, emphasizing the need for dedicated institutional frameworks to translate experimentation into lasting urban transformations.
Berlin: Grassroots-Led Interventions in a Planning Vacuum
Berlin’s tactical urbanism scene is characterized by a proliferation of grassroots, bottom-up initiatives, particularly in formerly industrial or underutilized areas. Projects such as temporary parks, art installations, and community gardens reclaim neglected spaces and challenge traditional planning norms. However, the absence of a coherent municipal strategy creates a „planning vacuum,“ leading to occasional conflicts between activists and authorities (Novy & Colomb, 2013).
Many initiatives rely on volunteer labor and informal agreements, creating a fragile ecosystem vulnerable to eviction or political shifts. Despite these risks, Berlin’s vibrant tactical scene fosters creativity, social networks, and alternative narratives about urban space. This case underscores the potential of tactical urbanism to foster urban innovation while also revealing institutional barriers that hinder integration into formal planning.
Portland: Tactical Urbanism within a Strategic Framework
Portland has embraced tactical urbanism more systematically, with the Bureau of Transportation’s “Better Block” program representing a model of institutionalized tactical action aligned with long-term modal shift goals (PBOT, 2018). Tactical interventions serve as testing grounds for street redesigns promoting walking, biking, and transit.
Portland’s experience demonstrates the importance of regulatory flexibility, municipal funding, and formal evaluation mechanisms in enabling tactical urbanism to contribute meaningfully to city-wide planning objectives. This program also integrates community input from the outset and commits resources to maintain successful interventions.
Portland’s strategic framework balances experimental agility with accountability, offering lessons for cities seeking to institutionalize tactical urbanism without losing its participatory spirit.
Key Findings
Enabling Institutional Conditions
Successful tactical urbanism integration depends heavily on institutional flexibility and support. Dedicated municipal units or staff tasked with overseeing tactical projects help navigate regulatory hurdles and coordinate across departments. Regulatory leniency, such as temporary permits or waivers, facilitates rapid implementation. Importantly, formal evaluation mechanisms allow municipalities to learn from tactical experiments and justify scaling or institutionalizing successful initiatives (Lydon & Garcia, 2015).
Political leadership that champions tactical urbanism and allocates budget resources further enables mainstreaming. Cross-sector partnerships, including collaborations with NGOs and private actors, diversify support and expertise.
Community Engagement and Co-production
Tactical urbanism’s participatory dimension can strengthen democratic planning by enabling citizens to co-produce urban spaces from inception through evaluation. Authentic engagement that empowers marginalized groups enhances social equity and trust in planning processes (Faga, 2006; Healey, 1997). Conversely, superficial consultation risks alienating communities and fostering backlash.
Several interviewees emphasized the importance of transparent communication and feedback loops to maintain legitimacy. The iterative nature of tactical projects encourages ongoing dialogue and adaptation.
Risks and Challenges
The analysis identified three primary risks:
Co-optation: Private developers or commercial interests may exploit tactical urbanism tools to enhance property values or marketing without genuine community benefit (Douglas, 2016). For example, some pop-up parks have been used to increase neighborhood desirability and accelerate gentrification.
Inequity: Tactical interventions tend to concentrate in affluent or gentrifying neighborhoods, exacerbating spatial inequalities (Finn, 2014). Low-income communities may lack the resources or political capital to initiate tactical projects.
Lack of Permanence: Many projects remain temporary, lacking mechanisms for maintenance, funding, or scaling, which undermines their transformative potential (Legacy, 2017). Without institutional support, tactical urbanism risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
Institutional Learning and Feedback Loops
Cities that have established feedback loops—incorporating monitoring, community input, and adaptive management—are better equipped to integrate tactical urbanism into long-term plans. This iterative approach resonates with adaptive planning theory’s emphasis on resilience and learning (Innes & Booher, 2010; Davoudi, 2012).
Data-driven evaluation, including surveys, usage statistics, and social media monitoring, helps justify resource allocation and policy shifts. Furthermore, institutional memory and knowledge sharing are critical for scaling best practices.
- Discussion
The findings suggest that tactical urbanism occupies a „middle ground“ in urban governance—a space where grassroots creativity meets institutional structures. It neither replaces nor undermines formal planning but offers a complementary mode of innovation. The critical factor is the process by which tactical projects are evaluated and institutionalized.
Two strategic pathways emerge for integration:
Incremental Integration involves aligning tactical interventions with existing planning cycles and policy objectives, gradually embedding them into official agendas. This pathway respects institutional traditions while opening space for innovation.
Institutional Scaffolding calls for creating dedicated support structures (e.g., specialized municipal units, regulatory frameworks) that foster experimentation while maintaining legitimacy (Pierre, 2011). This approach is more transformative but requires political will and organizational capacity.
Both pathways require a cultural shift in planning organizations toward embracing uncertainty and participatory governance. Planners must adopt facilitator roles, building trust and networks rather than solely regulating.
Additionally, the discussion recognizes that tactical urbanism can contribute to addressing urban crises, such as climate adaptation and social inclusion, by accelerating experimentation and scaling proven solutions. However, without deliberate integration strategies, tactical urbanism risks reinforcing inequalities and ephemeral gains.
Conclusion and Implications
Tactical urbanism holds significant promise for enhancing the adaptability, inclusivity, and responsiveness of urban planning. However, without deliberate pathways for integration, tactical projects risk remaining isolated or tokenistic. Urban planners must therefore expand their roles beyond regulators to facilitators and enablers of urban experimentation and co-production.
This study contributes to ongoing debates around adaptive governance and participatory urbanism, emphasizing the importance of institutional innovation to harness tactical urbanism’s potential. It highlights the need for political leadership, institutional flexibility, and genuine community engagement to move tactical urbanism from temporary experiments to lasting urban transformation.
Future research should explore the role of digital platforms, big data, and smart city technologies in supporting the integration of tactical interventions into planning processes. Exploring the socio-political dynamics of tactical urbanism in non-Western contexts would also enrich understanding.
Ultimately, the challenge lies in balancing tactical urbanism’s experimental, inclusive spirit with the stability and accountability required for sustained urban governance.
References
Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end? Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2), 299-333.
Douglas, G. C. (2016). The formalization of informal cities: The rise of legalist planning in cities of the global south. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(4), 743–757.
Faga, B. (2006). Designing public consensus: The civic theater of community participation for architects, landscape architects, planners, and urban designers. John Wiley & Sons.
Finn, D. (2014). DIY urbanism: Implications for cities. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 7(4), 381–398.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
Legacy, C. (2017). Is there a crisis of participatory planning? Planning Theory, 16(4), 425–442.
Lydon, M., & Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical urbanism: Short-term action for long-term change. Island Press.
Micallef, S. (2015). Stroll: Psychogeographic walking tours of Toronto. Coach House Books.
Mueller, N., Rojas-Rueda, D., Khreis, H., Cirach, M., Andrés, D., Ballester, J., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2020). Changing the urban design of cities for health: The superblock model. Environment International, 134, 105132.
Novy, J., & Colomb, C. (2013). Struggling for the right to the (creative) city in Berlin and Hamburg: New urban social movements, new ‘spaces of hope’? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1816–1838.
PBOT (Portland Bureau of Transportation). (2018). Better Block PDX: Project evaluation report. City of Portland.
