Public Participation in the Planning of Developing Countries: Lessons from the Chapultepec Cultural Corridor

Posted on by Mariano Moran Ventura
Share on LinkedIn

by Mariano Moran Ventura

In August 2014, the Corredor Cultural Chapultepec “CCC”[1] project was announced by the local government of Mexico City. It was destined to be one of the biggest urban improvements in the history of Mexico’s capital. Echoing the Highline Park in New York City, the CCC was greeted with enthusiasm as an opportunity for an impoverished neighborhood. Almost a year and a half year after its announcement, the CCC project was rejected in the polls; its defeat was a victory for organized protestors.

Mexico City, Frente + Rdvg Architects
FRENTE + RDVG Architects 2016

What went wrong?

Chapultepec Avenue (commonly addressed as “Chapultepec”) is one of the biggest and oldest avenues in Mexico City. Due to its lack of safe pedestrian infrastructure, lighting, and security, it serves as a high-speed freeway between Chapultepec Park and downtown Mexico City. The avenue separates two of the most vibrant districts in the city, Colonia Roma, Colonia Condesa, and Colonia Juárez, both inhabited by young professionals and artists, and one the center of the LGBTQ community’s nightlife.

Unlike these lively neighborhoods, Chapultepec Avenue is not a destination for tourists or locals. Even though Mexico City’s first subway stations are along Chapultepec, the avenue is dominated by cars, with 10 moving traffic lanes. Pedestrians mostly utilize it for getting to other parts of the city because it feels unsafe due to its lack of walkable infrastructure, adequate lighting, and hotspots of black market commerce[2].

In May of 2014, the Mexico City Government announced its intent to build the CCC, an “urban recycling” of Chapultepec Avenue. The project’s exact specifications were vague at the time of the announcement, but design renderings showed that the transformation would include the construction of a two-level pedestrian promenade on top of the car-centric avenue. It would be a joint public-private venture. The project sought to “create a complete street with cultural vocation that includes public space, equipment, streets, parking spaces and infrastructure both over and underground.” The CCC would finally connect “the most vibrant district of Mexico City” through an elevated passageway, leaving the street available for rapid transit.[3]

No other information was made public until more than a year later, when information was leaked to the press that the CCC had considerably departed from its initial renderings, with a predominance of commercial, and not, cultural spaces. The report also showed the project made concessions to please private investors, all in secrecy from the public. The residents of the CCC’s neighboring districts were outraged, and quickly started organizing, demanding to be included in the planning process[4].

In contrast to the government’s efforts to speed through the planning process, local activists pressured the Mexico City Electoral Institute to announce the organization of a “Citizen Consultation” on December 7, 2015. Almost a year and a half after the project was announced, the government sought public input via a referendum consisting of one question: “Should the Corredor Cultural Chapultepec be implemented? Yes/No”.

The sole public debate between supporters and detractors of the CCC lasted for less than 50 minutes[5]. Finally, with participation less than 5% of the potential voters, the CCC was rejected with more than 14,000 votes for “No” and around 7,000 for “Yes”.[6]

Chapultepec, Mexico City
Merino J., Fierro E.(2015, December 8). ¿Por qué ganó el no al #CCChapultepec? Animal Político.

In contemporary planning, public participation is deemed a valuable tool to hold a project accountable and assure it will realize the local community’s demands. This holds true in developed and developing countries[7]. Any project can be improved through public participation, through the inclusion of non-expert[8] experiential “local knowledge” of the community[9]. Public participation also increases support for a project. Perhaps most importantly, effective public participation is the realization of a democratic ideal, one in which the people is responsible for its own fate[10].

Mexico City’s government did not deem public participation to be necessary till the press leaks. After negative news broke, the government tried to expedite the process while offering few and limited opportunities for public participation. For local residents, it seemed like “everything was already agreed upon”, that there weren’t any alternatives, and that the emergent public participation methods were not enough to include them[11]. This lack of public access in the formulating and commenting upon the project’s design increased the risk of unforeseen adverse effects for its implementation. [12] It also resulted in the polarization of discourse between supporters and the opponents of the project.

The main reason the CCC was rejected in the polls was not due to the contrast of ideas between supporters and opponents. Instead, the lack of an appropriate space for the confrontation of ideas and the reactionary character of the Citizen Consultation (the only step of the project open to the public) set the scene for an emotional confrontation, one reminiscent of previous projects with negative effects. As such, the most important lesson from the CCC’s failure is that the planning process should be an ongoing interaction between the community’s stakeholders. It should be based on transparency and the notion that governance is not exclusive to government bureaucrats.  It is a distribution of power among society[13].

This notion may be difficult for the corruption-susceptible democratic institutions in developing countries to accept, but as the CCC case exhibits, the results of a partial and false inclusion of the public can be worse[14]. A collaborative planning approach is a good opportunity to test the creativity of the governed, a chance for the public sector to break the constraints of private investors, and an opportunity for people to participate in the design of a better city, a better life.

Sources: News and Websites

Sources: Academic Texts

  • Brabham, D. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects.Planning Theory, 8(3), 242-262.
  • Choguill, C. (1987) New Communities for Urban Squatters: Lessons from the Plan That Failed in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Available from ebrary database.
  • Corburn(2003) Bringing Local Knowledge into Environmental Decision Making: Improving Urban Planning for Communities at Risk. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22(4): 420–433.
  • Innes J. & Booher D. (2004). Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century, Planning Theory & Practice, 5:4, 419-436
  • Potter, R. (2012). Urbanization and Planning in the Third World, Volume 4: Spatial Perceptions and Public Participation. Available from ebrary database.

[1]Chapultepec Cultural Corridor in Spanish.

[2] Treviño, X.(2014).

[3] ADN Político (2014, May 21).

[4] Ugalde, L. (2015, December 8).

[5] Llanos, R. (2015, December 3).

[6] Merino, Fierro (2015, December 8).

[7] Potter (2012) p.148

[8] Brabham (2009) p. 244

[9] Corburn (2003) pp. 421-422

[10] Potter (2012) p.149

[11] Flores (2015, August 20)

[12] Choguill (1987) p. 184

[13]Innes J. & Booher D. (2004) p. 429

[14] For the community, the government and the private investors, as resources were wasted with no improvement for the community, a damaged government’s reputation and trust, and no profit achieved.

Share on LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *