IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cipsxx/v31y2026i2p208-226.html

Towards a collective urban vision? An analysis of ‘rethink London’ official plan review using a collaborative planning framework

Author

Listed:
  • Elmond Bandauko

Abstract

The City of London, Ontario (Canada) launched Rethink London (2012–2014) as a community-focused initiative to engage diverse stakeholders in shaping the city’s long-term urban vision during its Official Plan review process. While Rethink London resulted in the adoption of The London Plan in 2016, there has been no systematic evaluation of the process through the lens of a collaborative planning framework. This paper evaluates how far Rethink London reflects collaborative planning principles, focusing on purpose and incentives, equal opportunity and resources, inclusive representation, and principled negotiation. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with municipal officials, councillors, public engagement consultants and community leaders. While Rethink London grappled with conflicting interests, the process fostered broader stakeholder engagement through tailored participatory methods such as comment cards, workshop in a box and social media among others. The study highlights the importance of intentional process design to enhance engagement and equity in complex urban planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Elmond Bandauko, 2026. "Towards a collective urban vision? An analysis of ‘rethink London’ official plan review using a collaborative planning framework," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 208-226, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cipsxx:v:31:y:2026:i:2:p:208-226
    DOI: 10.1080/13563475.2025.2589192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13563475.2025.2589192
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13563475.2025.2589192?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cipsxx:v:31:y:2026:i:2:p:208-226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cips20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.