Advocating for youth participation in planning, regeneration, and neighbourhood management.

This essay can be read on the website of the youth toolkit Voice Opportunity Power. Created by Grosvenor Britain & Ireland, the TCPA, Sport England and ZCD Architects, the toolkit is a free resource with practical guidance on how to involve young people (aged 11-18) in the way that places are built and managed. It seeks to place them on an equal footing alongside other stakeholders in the process and responds directly to the Government’s call in the new planning White Paper for greater youth engagement. Visit:

Giving young adults voice & power over what gets built creates better places for everyone: Advocating for youth participation in planning, regeneration, and neighbourhood management.

Author: Simeon Shtebunaev
Commissioned by Grosvenor Britain & Ireland

I. Introduction. Participation and young people.

The 2020 White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ [i] identifies young people as ‘those who stand to gain from development’ but whose voice is ‘not heard loudly enough’. This essay aims to set out the case for involving young people more widely in the development and management processes and present the Grosvenor-led Voice.Opportunity.Power toolkit which can be used by practitioners to achieve meaningful youth engagement in their projects. The essay provides background to the importance of participation in the planning process, systemises some of the main arguments for the inclusion of young people in order to achieve better outcomes and then presents successful models of youth inclusion backed up by selected case studies.

In policy documents the term ‘young people’ is usually accompanied by the term ‘children’, often generating perceptions of inexperienced, and therefore insignificant, voices:  engaging with them may to tick off diversity goals, yet their voices are largely ignored. In recent years, increasing attention has rightly been devoted to children’s right to play[ii], be safe in and to occupy urban environments[iii] [iv]. However, a significant demographic of young adults is often forgotten between the dichotomy of children and adults, a demographic that often tends to be simply placated by city officials or developers by the construction of a skate park or other, perhaps inappropriate, leisure facility[v].

It is widely accepted that involving communities in the creation of the villages, towns and cities in which they live is a cornerstone of successful placemaking. Meaningful participation in the planning and design process through involving diverse stakeholders leads to better social inclusion, conflict management, sustainable development, economic benefits, and reduction of public opposition[vi]. Yet underrepresented groups can be excluded from those processes either by design or by their lack of access to economic, knowledge or social capital. Children and young people often fall in the latter category, and so are rarely effectively consulted as stakeholders in the design process.

For the purposes of this essay we will focus on and adopt the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs[vii] distinction of teenagers (13-19 years of age) and young adults (20-24 years of age). It is important to note that young people within that age range will most likely than not be economically active, able to make informed decisions, will be developing their education or career and eager to be engaged with their peers and wider society. A good proportion would be politically active and even larger proportion would have reached voting age. For context in 2018[viii], 7,75% of the UK population fell in the teenage category and 6,3% in the young adults one. This transitional period between being a child and a fully-fledged adult contains a diverse population, without a homogenous outlook, making it difficult to effectively engage with them in a straightforward way. However, investing the time and effort in consulting this demographic and implementing their suggestions can pave the way for a long-term sustainable management of places. Meaningful engagement requires adults to provide access to information, share their power and respect the decisions taken by the consultees, leading to better outcomes for all. The Raynsford Review of Planning in England[ix] advocates a wider participation of communities in the planning process, and in particular young people. Communities who traditionally have not participated in planning should be a main target of engagement.

II. What are some of the arguments for increased participation of young people? Justifying involvement by young people can be a challenge in the current environment, where cultural perceptions see development projects through an adult-centred world view[x]. Young people as a demographic can be easily dismissed or placated, specifically young people in disadvantaged positions, such as being under the age of eighteen, lacking financial independence or because of their intersectional experiences (the interplay between different social categorizations such as race and class). This essay presents arguments that can strengthen the case for giving serious and effective consideration to youth participation in the planning, regeneration, and ongoing management of places.

The statutory argument.
Young people have the right to be involved. The UK is a signatory several international conventions and treaties. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989)[xi]aims to protect the human rights of people under the age of eighteen. Of particularinterest is Article 12, stipulating the rights of children to participate in decision-making processes that directly impact them. This human right of young people under the age of 18 is often ignored in design and planning processes. Furthermore,  Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention on access to information (1998) requires public participation concerning plans, programmes and policies relating to the environment, strengthening the UNCRC’s Article 12. The New Urban Agenda, endorsed by UN Member States in 2016, places particular emphasis on ‘youth’ as one of the key demographics with which international, national, and local actors need to work  in the context of urban development. Young people have also been identified as key demographic for the successful delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals, part of the leading UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, through the ‘Young leaders for the SDGs’ programme.[xii]   To substantiate and understand the statutory argument we recommend looking at the 2019 RTPI-led review about child-friendly planning in the UK[xiii], as well as Dr Jenny Wood’s 2015 review of the Scottish system[xiv].

The democratic argument. Young people have the agency to change their communities. In particular, young adults over the age of eighteen have the right to vote but may often lack key information to be able to meaningfully exercise their rights. As reported by a city-wide survey in Birmingham, England, young people feel short-changed by existing power structures[xv] and would like to be involved in all stages of development of a built project. Furthermore, youth can challenge existing power relations[xvi] by transforming existing adult-to-adult exchanges, altering the status quo, and delivering new solutions. By actively seeking youth involvement, a private organisation or a public body can ensure a more transparent and democratic process of development[xvii], as well as tap into the underestimated potential and enthusiasm of a neglected demographic. A great example is the work of the charity ‘ A Place in Childhood’[xviii] in the development of the Scottish Place Standards for children and young people.

The sustainability and stewardship argument. Young people will inherit the places where they live, so they should be able to exercise a say and take some degree of ownership over them [xix]. In order to secure a long-term sustainable development and management of place, communities must be able to reproduce themselves by retaining and engaging with future generations. Involving young people can also highlight and promote long-term societal issues to the top of the agenda, such as climate change, as the ‘Student Strike 4 Climate’[xx] movement demonstrates. For example, in a project in Dapto, Australia[xxi], children’s involvement and advocating of environmental issues has resulted in a long-term relationship with the property developer, recognising young people as social agents and implementing better-informed designs. Young people can also be actively involved in the management of place. In the United States context, the creation of Youth Masterplans[xxii] demonstrates the value of young people involved in the long-term management of place, when this governance participation is driven by clear visions and goals.

The embodied knowledge argument. Young people can provide new perspectives on the environment which they occupy and its key features.[xxiii]Often children and young people, in particular teenagers, know a neighbourhood most intimately and can contribute insights which would otherwise be inaccessible or overlooked by users outside of that demographic. In redeveloping the A428, Highways England engaged with Blockbuilders to seek feedback from young people as to the suitability of crossing points and highway proposals, a topic otherwise reserved to the realm of engineering modelling.[xxiv] Within the demographic discussed, young adults in particular would often possess skills and expertise which have been developed in education or work, and which can supplement communities’ activities, e.g. students of architecture, art, engineering and other disciplines. Live projects[xxv] is a methodology and teaching that promotes student work with real-life clients. The projects have served as the catalysts for the development of masterplans, securing funding for cultural and arts organisations, providing research outcomes together with local stakeholders in diverse communities across the world, demonstrating the value of young adults in the design process and their ability to act as mediators.

The personal development argument. Young people can benefit from engagement and develop themselves. If young people are involved in the planning and design process, they can develop planning and development skills; develop increased self-confidence; learn how to create community change; learn about the local community and environment; develop enthusiasm for planning and community participation[xxvi], thus building youth capacity for future local action and further professional development. Advancing  the capacities of young people can further benefit  operations of an organisation within the area or context they are active in. In the case of Bruntwood, their partnership with youth organisations such as Manchester Youth Zone[xxvii] has created social mobility opportunities and directly fed into the recruitment  model of the company. In London, projects delivered by organisations such as the Build Up Foundation[xxviii] and Matt + Fiona[xxix] develop construction, project management and architectural skills amongst young people.

The social cohesion argument. Young people can be agents of change and  in their communities. Involving young people in the development of places can foster social integration[xxx] where young people feel valued and have a sense of belonging, stimulate better intergenerational relations, and develop networks of similarly-minded young people. In particularly challenging contexts, such as post-disaster re-development or places where youth violence is high, involving young people in the planning process can improve their health and safety, emotional security, stability, and mental development[xxxi]. Giving young people responsibility and a voice can shape their identities, allow for social growth, and tackle issues of inequalities and inclusion in the city[xxxii] 

The cultural argument. Young peoplehave a significant input in the culture of a place. The cultural and economic production of  young people relies on spatial provisions. Hanging out gives rise to youth cultures which, in turn, can generate outputs, trends and cultural developments used by and defining society at large. Youth clubs’ musical programmes across the UK are an example of a network of spaces training future musical professionals, directly linked to musical genres such as grime and providing the base for an industry worth £5.2 bn.[xxxiii] Providing the space and opportunity for young people to be expressive can stimulate cultural advances and benefit the local area. The creative and cultural industries are one of the fastest expanding sectors in the UK.

The economic argument. Young people’s activities and presence can benefit the economy of a place.Attractive places with an active intergenerational population can attract investment, increased footfall and interest, thus sustaining business based there. Economic benefits can be observed in the streamlining of the planning and development process by effectively engaging communities. In their report ‘Cities Alive: Designing for Urban Childhoods’[xxxiv], Arup identify retention of families, vibrant destinations, attractive developments and space saving as some of the key economic drivers a child-friendly city can provide. Employing innovative financial tools such as crowdfunding can enable localised activities to take root and enhance local areas, creating jobs in the process. The initiative ‘Crowdfund London’ has also provided spaces for young people to be delivered, as is the case of the Tottenham Fast Food – a restaurant aimed at providing healthier alternatives for young people[xxxv]  and the music space in Tower Hamlets[xxxvi]. On a strategic level, the Portuguese government trailed a youth participatory budgeting initiative in 2017[xxxvii], which had demonstrated the creative ability of young people to generate project proposals and resulted in the successful funding of seven proposals across the country. 

The betterment and appropriation argument. Young people have the ability to physically alter the built environment in the areas where they live for the benefit of the whole community. Young people can identify problems, develop solutions, pitch for and secure funding from public and private bodies and physically construct interventions if given the freedom and support to take on such initiatives[xxxviii]. Young people use space differently, giving rise to new ways of designing places. Teenagers often use urban and rural environments in ways contrary to adult expectations,[xxxix] which might give rise to new ways of developing, regenerating, or maintaining places. Unforeseen change can be fostered if young people are supported, such as in the case of Foodhall, Sheffield[xl], where a youth-led group of graduates has regenerated a space in the city centre to provide a community kitchen and a public dining space.

The innovation in planning and design practice argument. Young people can drive innovation.The involvement of youth in the planning and design process can be an opportunity to innovate and change organisational practices and policies. By having to design with children and young people due to their presence at the decision-making table, planning and design practitioners have to alter their approach in order to create more inclusive places. The emergence of the UNICEF Child-Friendly Cities Initiative in 1996 is a great example of an expanding network of practitioners innovating in planning practice.Young people tend to be more digitally savvy and to respond more positively to new and innovative methods of engagement. [xli] Young people can serve as a link to other generations and an agent of change when digital advances are considered. In the case of the local plan consultation in Brisbane[xlii], Australia, the introduction of a digital game testing development density had resulted in increased participation from young people which, in turn, has provided the city with much more comprehensive data on which to base a policy decision.

The ten arguments presented begin to shape the case for engagement with young people in the planning, design and management of places. However, there is a distinct lack of structured and systematic evidence being collected by governments, local authorities, professionals and research institutions about the value that young people can bring to the placemaking process which is stifling their inclusion in the process. In a fast-changing world, driven by long-term trends such as digitalisation, health and wellbeing and green economic transformation, the inclusion of young people in the design process can be key to unlocking new potential opportunities. To be able to make the most of such potential disruptive events, we need to be aware of the value of young people, collect the necessary evidence base by conducting further research and engage with the demographic with an open and scientific mind.

III. Designing ‘with’ rather than ‘for’ young people

While there are several established theoretical models of youth participation, in the context of planning and design practice, these are often not applied. Roger Hart’s Ladder[xliii], an adaptation of Sherry Arnstein’s famous ‘ladder of participation’ is a useful tool for practitioners to understand the meaning of designing ‘with’ young people. The ladder presents a hierarchical view of types of engagement, where the pinnacle of involvement is a youth-initiated and set-up project in which adults are seen as equal partners. Harry Shier’s ‘Pathways to Participation’[xliv] adopts a more practical representation for organisations to measure and track their commitment to engaging young people in decision making.  A very useful summary of theoretical models of youth participation employed since the 1960s has been compiled by Andreas Karsten[xlv], a researcher at Youth Policy Labs. Putting those models to practice, however, necessitates an understanding of the landscape of youth work and youth needs. The Grosvenor-led toolkit Voice.Opportunity.Power seeks to plug that gap by providing practical advice how to conduct meaningful engagement linked to the RIBA Plan of Work.

Within planning and design projects, we need to consider at which stage of the process it is feasible or crucial to involve young people, as this will dictate the best way to design with them. Ideally, public participation including youth will be carried out from inception to evaluation: however, financial or other restrictions can often constrain the process. The toolkit provides a workshop-led model leading up to RIBA Stage 3 or completed design, resulting in a closed feedback loop, respecting and implementing the views of young people in the design process. When considering designing with young people, it is important to define clear goals and set clear expectations of what you are asking young people to contribute on. In the early stages of a project, youth-led research and analysis can help to generate ideas and define project involvement. Throughout the design process, feedback on proposals can be acquired by facilitating workshops[xlvi], employing engagement processes such as online platforms, fore examples the Commonplace[xlvii] platform has been very popular with young people, or gamification of problems in both digital and physical forms. It is important to plan for such interactions, as communication techniques, language style and confidence levels will vary significantly across a youth demographic. In order to plan and design meaningfully with young people, it is important to take their input seriously, implement suggestion and allow for feedback cycles to take place. Effective scrutiny by the young people involved is key. Surrendering power is a key stage of a genuinely participatory process.  On a strategic level, evaluation by young people of long-term visions, masterplans and regeneration projects can be achieved by the introduction of specific youth design panels, involving youth in existing mixed-age panels[xlviii] or ensuring a representation of young people on roundtables.

IV. Examples of successful youth involvement in the design or planning of places.
Here, five different projects have been selected, covering different scales and functions. Further examples of projects designed with children and young people can be found on the ‘Designing with Children’ project developed by Jo Birch and Rosie Parnell[xlix].

Placeshapers[l] isan urban design project in Blanchardstown, a suburb of Dublin, Ireland. Commissioned by the Irish Architecture Foundation and Fingal County Council Arts office, the project was delivered in 2014 by Robert Bourke Architects, together with architect Kate Dowling and film maker Peter Kelly. The team had worked with Transition Year students (ages 15-16) over a five-month period. The focus of the project was to identify ways for improvement of their neighbourhoods by critically appraising it through series of workshops. After defining permeability as a key issue, the team of students had developed design proposals, presented those to the local council and constructed a temporary playground straddling a fence, capturing the attention of local politicians and residents. The project demonstrates how young people can provide valuable insights about their local area and mobilise community and political action.

Growing Up Boulder
[li] is a child and youth-friendly initiative by the University of Colorado with the support of local authorities and other stakeholders in the city of Boulder, CO, USA. The initiative started in 2009 and it works with children (0-18 years of age) to include their input in local government decisions. The initiative has been very successful and has developed a model of integrating young people’s views in the workings of the local planning department. The initiative places particular importance on diversity and at least half of their youth population has to come from underrepresented backgrounds e.g. immigrants, ethnic minorities and young people with disabilities. A review of local improvement projects between 2012 and 2014[lii] stresses the importance for planning officials to go to the places where young people are, and to recognise the ability of young people to consider the needs of the whole community – animals, other age groups, the homeless when developing their ideas. The projects have evolved significantly and tackle areas such as transportation; parks and nature; planning housing and sustainability; arts; youth voice and parents’ needs. It also maintains online teen and child-friendly maps of the city.

Euston Youth Panel 2040 [liii]
is a youth engagement project within the wider regeneration of Euston station in London, England. Initiated by Lendlease, facilitated by ZCD Architects with support by Fitzrovia Youth in Action, Bengali Workers Association and New Horizon Youth Centre, the project aims to engage 14 to 20-year-olds in the long-term management of a national transport asset. Importantly, participants in the panel received some payment. The project had embraced a co-design process, allowing for the young people to develop a future engagement programme based on their own engagement experience with the workshops, their knowledge of the area and their expertise as young people regarding the most successful methods of communication with their peers. The project showcases how engaging young people in long-term regeneration processes does not need to be a one-off event, and that sustained engagement can provide continuous insight.  

Handlebar Café[liv] is acafé and bike workshop at the Viaduct Cycle Path, near Winchester, England. The project has been created by young people attending creative workshops at the local charity SpudYouth and is managed by Bespoke Biking, a local Community Interest Company. The project has initiated a development from the ground up, where young people have been able to identify a need in the community, then design and develop a proposal for spatial intervention. Having presented the idea to Winchester City Council and to the Town Forum, Spud and the student participants were invited to develop the designs further and explore whether this was a feasible design. Ongoing construction for five years, the development opened doors in late 2019, providing a local amenity to the wider community of cyclists and other path users. The project has been supported by Winchester City Council, the University of Portsmouth, ArchitecturePLB and other commercial organisations who have developed the plans, designs, and business case more fully. The project demonstrates that if ideas generated by young people are listened to meaningfully, then they can generate built projects serving a wider community.

Tiuna El Fuerte[lv] is a cultural park occupying an under-used plot of land in the city of Caracas, Venezuela. Self-initiated by Alenjandro Haiek Coll, Eleanna Cadalso and Michele Sanches de Leon of Lab.Pro.Fab, the project has been running since 2006. The cultural park fulfils a local need for more green space and diverse youth programming, allowing a creative outlet for young people and a space free of violence. The project is constructed of low-cost materials and has been expanding to include a city cultural park, complete with offices, classrooms, dining spaces, areas for workshops and performances. The project relies on local civic networks and has been developed without support from government sources. Tiuna El Fuerte demonstrated the power of local communities, and particularly young people, to employ tactical urbanism for their own betterment, and the cultural park has developed a space in the city where local gangs have agreed to not operate and where cultural production by young people can flourish.

V. Summary

These examples provide a glimpse of what is possible if young people are invited around the decision-making table and given a voice equal to that of experienced adults. The counter argument, however, provides us with a warning. In the case Downtown Portland, Maine[lvi], a well-recorded struggle between the business community and youth in the 1990s had resulted in the label ‘undesirables’ being applied to young people due to the perceived negative impact that they had on tourists and local businesses. The cultural homogeneity of proposed projects as part of the urban renaissance movement had pushed young people away from their own city centre and resulted in clashes between different communities. We can observe similar conflicts in many large-scale development projects across the UK. Involving young people in the design, planning and management of the places in which they live can prevent such large-scale breakups of community trust and foster tolerance. From analysing and initiating projects, the delivery and construction of built structures, to the design of consultation processes, young people can be a valuable asset and provide an insight that can benefit the wider population and ecosystem of a place.

To be successful, young people’s engagement requires a mediator, be that a charity or youth workers, somebody who is able to speak to and respect youth’s views, while convincing other adults of the value of young people until that relationship and trust is strong enough on its own. Engaging a transient group which is highly mobile and in a process of constant flux requires understanding of their needs when planning the long-term community engagement processes and outcomes. The cost to benefit ratio of engaging youth can be worthwhile since,  if done appropriately, it can spark change which had been unforeseen, promote long-term management of place and empower young people to contribute further to the wider neighbourhood in which they live. As designers, planners, commissioners, investors, and developers we need to recognise the value of young people in the development process and break some of the barriers that stop it from fulfilling its potential. We need to place greater weight on the methods of engagement we use, in order to test, spark and foster those relationships with the youth communities in the places on which we work. Toolkits such as the Voice,Opportunity.Power have the opportunity to equip professionals with the tools needed to develop such relationships and help succeed in planning, regenerating, and managing successful places.

[i] The White Paper is available at:, The reference to young people is at pg. 12.

[ii] See Tim Gill’s work on child-friendly places at:

[iii] See UNICEF, Child Friendly Cities Initiative, Accessible at:

[iv] See European Network for Child Friendly Cities, Accessible at:

[v] Bishop, K. and Corkery, L. (217) Designing Cities with Children and Young People: Beyond Playgrounds and Skate Parks, Routledge, Abingdon

[vi] ‘Making community participation meaningful. A handbook for development and assessment. ‘ Danny Burns, Frances Heywood, Marilyn Taylor, Pete Wilde and Mandy Wilson, (2004) The Policy Press, University of West of England

[vii] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Department on Youth, FAQs, Accessible: , Accessed 15/08/2020.

[viii] Office for National Statistics, interactive demographic pyramid can be accessed: 

[ix] The Raynsford Review of Planning in England is available at the TCPA’s website on:

[x] Further information and examples can be found at the Journal of the Academy of Urbanism, Issue 14: Creating Inclusive Cities, accessible at:

[xi] United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989, accessible at:, Accessed 15/08/2020.

[xii] UN Sustainable Development Goals and Youth, Accessible at:, Accessed 15/08/2020.

[xiii] Wood,J., Bornat, D. and Bicquelet-Lock, A. (2019) Child Friendly Planning gin the UK: A Review, RTPI publication, accessible at:, Accessed 15/08/2020

[xiv] Jenny Wood (2015) Children and Planning: To What Extent Does the Scottish

Town Planning System Facilitate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?, Planning Practice

and Research, 30:2, 139-159, DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2015.1014222

[xv] ‘We can no longer make the excuse that young people do not want to engage with, participate in and contribute to society. The above reiterates that young people want a seat at the table, but

our current methods and structures of civic, political, and societal participation leaves them without a chair, plate, or cutlery, let alone anything to eat.’ (pg 51.) Beatfreeks (2019) Brum Youth Trends, online report, pg. 51. Accessible on: , Accessed 15/08/2020

[xvi] Nordström, M., Wales, M., (2019). Enhancing urban transformative capacity through children’s participation in planning. Ambio 48, 507–514.

[xvii] Read Commonplace’s Youtn Urban Panel views on engaging young people:

[xviii] You can find out more about the work of  ‘A Place in Childhood’ and child-led placemaking here:

[xix] Derr ,V., Chawa,L., Mintzer,M. (2018) Placemaking with Children and Youth: Participatory Policies for Planning Sustainable Communities, New Village Press, page 8,

[xx] Thomas, A., Cretney, R. and Hayward, B. (2019) Student Strike 4 Climate: Justice, emergency and citizenship, New Zealand Geographer, 019;75:96–100, New Zealand Geographical Society

[xxi] Karen Malone (2013) “The future lies in our hands”: children as researchers

and environmental change agents in designing a child-friendly neighbourhood, Local

Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 18:3, 372-395, DOI:


[xxii] Debra Flanders Cushing (2015) Promoting youth participation in

communities through youth master planning, Community Development, 46:1, 43-55, DOI:


[xxiii] Nordström, M., Wales, M., (2019). Enhancing urban transformative capacity through children’s participation in planning. Ambio 48, 507–514.

[xxiv] See:

[xxv] See University of Sheffield’s Live Project programme in South Yorkshire, available at:, as well as the Live Projects Network website, maintained by Oxford Brookes, collating examples of student involvement in community projects, available here:, Accessed 15/08/2020.

[xxvi] Frank, K.I., (2006). The Potential of Youth Participation in Planning. J. Plan. Lit. 20, 351–371.

[xxvii] See Bruntwood Partnership with Manchester Youth Zone, Accessible at:

[xxviii] You can see the work of the Build Up Foundation on here:

[xxix] You can see the work of Matt + Fiona on here:

[xxx] Driskell D. (2002), Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth: A Manual for Participation, Paris, London, UNESCO Publishing/Earthscan Efroymson, Pg.24

[xxxi] Barlett, S., Iltus, S. (2006) Making Space for Children: Planning for post-disaster reconstruction with children and their families, Save the Children Report,

[xxxii] Derr, V., Chawla, L., Mintzer, M., Cushing, D., Van Vliet, W., (2013). A City for All Citizens: Integrating Children and Youth from Marginalized Populations into City Planning. Buildings 3, 482–505.

[xxxiii] See Emma Warren writing in the Developer Magazine No.3 , Spring/Summer 2020, pg 70: ‘It’s no surprise that during the lockdown, youth workers rolled up their sleeves and got creative’.

[xxxiv] You can access the Arup report ‘ Cities alive: Designing for Urban Childhoods’ and read about the case studies examined in the report on here:

[xxxv] The Tottenham Fast Food Project can be seen:

[xxxvi] The Tower Hamlets music space four young people can be seen on here:

[xxxvii] Bernardino, S., & Freitas Santos, J. (2020). Crowdsourcing ideas for public investment: the experience of youth participatory budgeting in Portugal. In Gajda, O., Marom, D. & Wright, T. (Eds.). CrowdAsset: Crowdfunding for Policymakers, Chapter 17, pp. 353-379, World Scientific, Singapore.

[xxxviii] See BuildUp Foundation Projects where young people construct physical developments across London, Accessible at:, Accessed 15/08/2020.

[xxxix]  Pacione. M, (2009) Urban Geography: A Global Perspective, Routledge, Abingdon, pg 398

[xl] See Foodhall Project’s website, accessible at:

[xli] Read the full report by Commonplace entitled ‘ Where are the young people?’, discussing the role of young people in placemaking and in particular digital engagement here:

[xlii] See Plan Your Brisbane game summary, accessible at:

[xliii] A great graphical representation of both Hart’s and Shier’s models can be found on the New Zealand’s Ministry of Youth Development’s website, here:

[xliv] Harry Shier’s pathways can be found here:

[xlv] See the full list of Youth Participation models from 1969 to 2012 on here:

[xlvi] Public Practice Planning Note on ‘Planning with young people’ can provide a practical overview about suitable workshops:

[xlvii] See the Commonplace report ‘Where are the young people? They are waiting and waiting.’ Accessible on:

[xlviii] The Old Oak Development Corporation, for example, promotes the inclusion of anyone over the age of 18 in their Community review Group, see more at:

[xlix] Examples of projects designed with children can be found on here:

[l] Place Shapers project, Accessible at:

[li] Growing Up Boulder, Accessible at:

[lii] Victoria Derr & Emily Tarantini (2016): “Because we are all people”: outcomes and reflections from young people’s participation in the planning and design of child-friendly public spaces, Local Environment, DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2016.1145643

[liii] Read in full about the engagement project at Euston here:

[liv] More information about the project is available at:

[lvi] Lees, L., 2003. The ambivalence of diversity and the politics of urban renaissance: the case of youth in downtown Portland, Maine. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 27, 613–634.

[lv] Find more about this project on here:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s