Although polarizing and polarizing, the current debate on urban densification is overwhelmingly positive. This energy must be harnessed to transform this dialogue of the deaf into a truly constructive public discussion. Between masterful presentations and killer clips, dialogue is the ingredient on which depends our collective success or failure, as a society, in intelligently and profitably managing this complex and sensitive issue of the future. Far from slogans and Twitter, it is possible.
In the current debate, as in most contemporary social or political debates, our collective conversation on urban densification is unfortunately not up to the challenges it underlies. Do we understand well! We can only rejoice in the enthusiasm of the last few days for questions, necessary and inevitable, of urban planning, densification and urban sprawl. While the quality of the expertise deployed is also cause for celebration, the fact remains that between the two extremes of populism and intellectualism, the main stakeholders speak within their own echo chamber and do not addressed only to their respective clans.
Yet experience teaches us that, on these or most human issues, the best pitch, the best technical demonstration, even the best tweet has virtually no effect if it is not preceded by a real effort of active and empathetic listening. Hammering your point, strong with all your conviction — whether ideological or scientific — leads nowhere without a real dialogue.
What dialogue?
Unfortunately, if we persist in using the term “dialogue” wrongly and indiscriminately, it risks becoming a fashionable word (buzzword). “Listening to the communities” does not mean noting the comments of citizens appearing at the microphone during an information evening or sharing the results of a survey. Nor is it content with a question and answer session and even less “cutting the pear in half” to try to demonstrate that a compromise has been reached.
A true dialogue is first and foremost a mode of conversation based on intelligence, reason, discernment, judgment and balance. He does not limit himself to hearing a diversity of opinions, but seeks to understand the reasons which justify them or the deep motivations which underlie them. It is an exercise that is often laborious, but all the more fruitful in that the shock, even the confrontation of ideas, sheds light as well as putting into perspective and generally salutary awareness. In other words, conditions conducive to the emergence of new, constructive and fruitful solutions.
When it comes to managing densification challenges, which vary widely from community to community, meaningful dialogue is a must, as their solution typically falls between an increasingly hard-to-defend status quo and models of development whose poor quality is matched only by the flawed design.
Create constructive spaces where to carry the debates
It has to be said that many—too many—digital information and exchange platforms exacerbate the polarization of debates and darken them rather than enlighten citizens.
Hence the primordial importance, for any promoter in search of social acceptability, to choose well, upstream of his project, the framework in which he must engage, maintain and maintain a dialogue worthy of the name; downstream, it is always too late, because opinions are crystallized and positions are firmly established. In other words, convictions have already yielded to stubbornness. In addition to hampering the possibility of a consensus (or a compromise), this state of affairs has as its corollary a price to be paid directly proportional to the time taken to arrive there. Any wise promoter knows that the further downstream (and therefore far upstream) an agreement is, the more expensive it becomes.
The requirements of social acceptability leave no choice: any project or any potentially controversial issue requires taking as soon as possible the sometimes trying path of openness and argumentation with all the stakeholders concerned, regardless of their positions.
And even if digital and social media are used by certain dogmatic groups who prefer noise, excess and disinformation to a sense of moderation and documented facts, a number of experiences on the ground clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that It is still possible to create constructive spaces in which to cultivate reflection and dialogue in an atmosphere that promotes reason, respect and trust. It is, in a way, the unshakeable perseverance of the “golden mean”.