Class, Community and Communicative Planning: Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London Ståle Holgersen and Håvard Haarstad Department of Geography, University of Bergen, Fosswinckelsgate 6, Norway; havard.haarstad@geog.uib.no Abstract: This paper presents an argument for considering issues of class in analyses of communicative planning projects. In these projects, class interests tend to be obscured by the contemporary preoccupation with the class-ambiguous category of “community”. Through a case study of a project of urban redevelopment at King’s Cross in London, we conceptualize and map class interests in an urban redevelopment project. Three aspects of the planning process that contain clear class effects are looked at: the amount of office space, the flexibility of plans, and the appropriation of the urban environment as exchange or use value. These aspects structure the urban redevelopment but are external to the communicative planning process. The opposition to the redevelopment has in the planning discourse been articulated as “community”-based rather than in class-sensitive terms. We finally present three strategies for reinserting issues of class into planning theory and practice. Keywords: communicative planning, class, antagonisms, community, London, King’s Cross Introduction The 67 acres of land at King’s Cross in London is the site of what has been labeled the biggest inner city redevelopment in Europe. Its location at the edge of the City of London and next to the end terminal for the high-speed rail link from Paris and Brussels places this redevelopment at the centre of strategies for maintaining London’s position as a hub for global financial capital accumulation. Yet issues of class are virtually absent from the discussions around the redevelopment, which are managed through a “communicative” planning process and resisted by various “community” groups. While business interests in the conflict around the development have been articulated as such, opposition groups have been included in the class-ambiguous category of “community”. The ideal of communicative planning has been subject to criticism from planning theorists who from various theoretical perspectives argue that proper communication cannot overcome unequal power relations and access to channels of influence. Less attention has been paid Antipode Vol. 41 No. 2 2009 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 348–370 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00676.x  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London 349 to the mechanisms by which issues of class take part in structuring power relationships in planning processes and the class effects of the contemporary preoccupation with the notion of “community”. This paper is an attempt to understand how issues of class and economic antagonisms structure the planning process in King’s Cross. Planning based on the communicative ideal mainly considers conflicts that can be resolved through communication. Economic antagonisms, lines of actual or potential conflict of economic interests, are based on structural material processes in capitalist society that are less likely to be overcome merely through proper communication. These processes are often understood through a bipolar distinction between capital and labor, the most abstract division between capitalist classes. In analyses of the urban environment this distinction can be traced to Lefebvre, among others. In order to concretize this distinction further we analyze agents in the planning process in terms of functions and the class processes in terms of layers. We look at three aspects of the planning process that we argue contain class effects: the amount of office space; flexibility in the plans; and the appropriation of urban environment as exchange value or use value. These aspects structured the planning process and constitute economic struggles, but were not considered in the communicative process. Further, we argue that the main agents in a planning process can be mapped according to economic interests and functions. This opens up an understanding of economic power relations and the class effects of a particular planning project. By making visible economic antagonisms that are not included in communicative processes, this analysis is intended to encourage class-sensitive planning theory and class-sensitive politics in planning practice. The paper proceeds as follows. The next section outlines the discussion on “the communicative turn” in planning theory and argues that both its proponents and critics tend to downplay economic antagonisms. The third section presents a framework for analyzing class relations in an urban planning project, and the fourth section links neoliberalism to the discourse of “community” in London. These are followed by the empirical section, which analyzes the three abovementioned aspects of the planning process that have effects on class relations. In the conclusion we return to the argument of inserting class into planning theory and practice, and propose three strategies for moving forward. The Communicative Turn and its Critics A number of urban planning theorists have brought attention to the “communicative turn” in urban and regional planning theory (Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones 2002; Amdam and Veggeland  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  350 Antipode 1998; Gunder 2003; Healey 1996; Yiftachel and Huxley 2000). The “communicative turn” has arguably reached a certain consensus around key theoretical and methodological questions (Yiftachel and Huxley 2000). This consensus is based on the communicative ideal (Skjeggedal 2005), and makes claims such as the need for normative theory, the relevance of agency over structure and the interest in studying practice. In the UK, this current has been referred to as “collaborative planning” (Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones 2002). In Habermas’ (1993) intersubjective communicative rationality, participation and communication form the basis for emancipation and social justice. The essence of communicative planning is that through learning how to collaborate and through successful communication it is possible to resolve conflicts and obtain agreement and consensus (Healey 1999). It is important to keep in mind that the ideal speech situation is just that, an ideal, and that even Habermas conceded that most instances of communicative action do not replicate this ideal (Allen 1986:15). Significant theoretical criticism has emerged against the communicative ideal in urban planning. Habermas posited the ideal speech situation as a criterion by which to register the “distorted communication” inherent in most interactions, but as Fainstein (2000) argues, when ideal speech instead becomes the objective of planning, the tendency of economic forces to distort communication is downplayed. The proponents of the communicative ideal “seem to forget the economic and social forces that produce endemic social conflict and domination by the powerful” (Fainstein 2000:455). Arguably, the communicative approach in planning assumes that economic antagonisms can be overcome through communicative action. Gunder (2003), Fainstein (2000) and Flyvbjerg (1998) have noted the lack of understanding of power in communicative planning. Although communicative planning accepts certain social power relations as given, it is assumed that communication can erase antagonisms and in turn that these antagonisms are embedded in communicative processes rather than in material processes. It is almost as “if only people were reasonable, deep structural conflict would melt away” (Fainstein 2000:455). Attention is diverted from the “underlying material and political processes which shape cities and regions” (Yiftachel and Huxley 2000:907). Gunder (2003:308) argues instead for a planning practice that should aim to plan “for the joy of the Others’ desire”. Flyvbjerg’s (1998) critique of the communicative ideal is based on the notion that power relations are embedded in communication and sociocultural practices. That is, it focuses on the weaknesses in democratic processes as a result of social, rather than economic, antagonisms. The communicative process allows change “only as long as it does not transcend the existing system” (Flyvbjerg and Petersen 1983:26). He argues that by distinguishing between “successful” and “distorted”  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London 351 communication, the communicative ideal obscures the power relations necessarily embedded in communication. But a danger of this otherwise pertinent critique is that economic factors and their significance in conditioning the geographical landscape of capitalism are downplayed (Merrifield 1993:528). While discursive power relations embedded in socio-cultural practices certainly are shaping planning processes, we would like to bring attention (back) to the ways in which these power relations and practices are grounded in material and economic antagonisms. Even when accepting communicative action as the ideal, there are empirical and practical problems involved in shaping planning processes democratically. For example, shaping these processes involves decisions about the inclusion and exclusion of “stakeholders”, often determined by practicalities. Mace argues, based on work in King’s Cross, London, that when participation and “inclusion” is the aim, the “hard to reach” become “harder to reach” (Mace 2007). Even in a rather smaller context, with an example from the Norwegian municipality Sogndal with only 3000 inhabitants, Naustadalslid (1991) shows that a communicative approach in planning produced “more power to the powerful”. When the collaborative processes themselves are shaped and delimited by institutions and agents with a particular agenda, there are limitations for what participation can achieve. In other words, economic relations form planning processes in important ways that tend to be downplayed in the focus on ideal communication. There is a need to address the question of how underlying economic structures and class antagonisms structure the potential for redistributive planning. Conceptualizing Class in Urban Planning Engaging a perspective on economic antagonisms involves identifying economic interests in a planning process, in order to see the dialectics between them. Our focus is on how the planning process is delimited and shaped by these economic interests. Economic antagonisms are often understood through a bipolar distinction between capital and labor, and this distinction can also be found in analyses of the urban environment. Edwards et al draw a bipolar distinction between these interests in empiric research on London: In rather oversimplified terms, one can say there have been those interests which are concerned about the future of London as a viable business environment and those interests which are concerned about the future of London as a place to live (Edwards et al 1992:188–189). Within the former, the “growth coalitions” are the business elites, unions, media, academics and they “involve the co-option of local authorities”. And the latter, the “citizen perspective”, is built up of  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  352 Antipode “the variety of different groups in the population” (1992:188–189). In Lefebvre (1973) and Smith (1991) we find the same bipolar distinction, between those who relate to urban space in terms of use value versus those who relate to the space as exchange value. Lefebvre articulated this as a contradiction which contains a “clash between a consumption of space which produces surplus value and one which produces only enjoyment—and is therefore “unproductive”. It is a clash, in other words, between capitalist “utilizers” and community “users” (Lefebvre 1991:359–360). We find this main distinction, with its numerous exceptions and ambiguities, valuable in our project. These bipolar antagonisms, which echo the abstract distinction between capital and labor, are necessarily transformed into finer grade distinctions when applied in empirical research. For example in King’s Cross, parts of local capital interests allied with local activists and other stakeholder groups, which makes bipolar distinctions difficult. Class can be theorized in a variety of ways, also in a planning process. Several kinds of capitalist class agents are present in the urban development process. Harvey divides these into fractions of capitalist classes and looks at how they relate to the built environment (Harvey 1978, 1985). In a concrete planning case it may be more productive to analyze class agents through their function in an urban development process. As Edwards argues, this is because particular agents or fractions of “labor in general” (Harvey 1985) may be absent in a particular case, “the main functions in urban development always have to be performed” (Edwards 1995). In an analysis of a communicative planning process, a sole focus on agents inhibits an understanding of how the positions of different agents affect the structuring of the urban development process. Since functions can be performed by a single agent or sets of separate agents, focusing on functions emphasizes the importance of organizational forms in an urban development process. It may also make visible agents and functions that are necessary in the urban development process but that might be hidden in the planning process. For example, financiers may not participate in the planning process, but have a central function in urban development. Within a particular planning project there may be intra capital class antagonisms or class alliances. Conflict might occur between local and financial capital, with opposing interests in relation to the construction of office space versus shopping areas, or between industrial and financial capital over national policy, which later transforms urban geography and social reality. Local capital may in turn form coalitions with citizen groups that seek vibrant, multi-use communities, for example. In addition, groups in antagonistic relations with capital interests may not articulate themselves on the basis of work or economic production, but for example on the basis of environmental questions that seem to cut across the capital/labor distinction.  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London 353 As for the non-accumulating classes, these may be labeled labor in general. Labor appropriates the built environment through consumption and as a means to social reproduction (Harvey 1985). Labor is also “sensitive to both the costs and the spatial disposition of the various items in the built environment” (like housing, education, services of all kinds and so on) (Harvey 1985:168). But again, finer-grade distinctions are necessary in empirical research. Conceptual frameworks need to capture both structural and economic antagonisms, and the way these are articulated and contradicted in specific planning conflicts. As we aim to show through the following case study, class interests are articulated in multiple and contradictory ways, that significantly structure processes of communicative planning. One way of conceptualizing class interests while allowing for their complexity in a specific communicative planning project is to see class relations as existing on different layers. Katznelson’s (1993) distinction between four different layers of class relations may serve as a point of departure. Marx’s phrase that bourgeoisie is the embodiment of capital (Marx 1990:92), or Harvey’s phrase that the commodity is the “material embodiment of use-value, exchange-value and value” (Harvey 1999:1) are important, but might be problematic if the abstract levels and their embodiments are discussed at the same time or confused. Operating within a conceptualization of class as simultaneously articulated on different layers might help in organizing this complexity. This distinction works as a methodological and theoretical tool for conceptualizing economic antagonisms while allowing for these to be articulated in empirical research. The first layer is within structures of capitalist development, and related to the value of theory and the methodology of abstraction. This is the layer where we find the structural separation between capital and labor. The second layer is that of social existence. This concerns how “actual people live within determinate patterns of life and social relations” (Katznelson 1993:208), such as their workplace or residential area. The third layer concerns how people “come to represent their lived experiences and how they constitute a normative guide to action”. The fourth layer concerns collective action; the ways in which actors self-consciously decide (not) to organize to benefit their perceived interests. The benefit of conceptualizing class interests in a communicative planning process through layers is that it opens up the possibility of researching antagonisms on one layer while acknowledging that these may be connected with antagonisms on a structural layer, or it might also help explain why antagonisms at one layer do not necessarily lead to conflict at another layer. By using these notions of functions and layers it is possible to conceptualize collective action articulated through a communicative planning process that may cut across abstract class interests, for example when a community group composed of citizen and environmental  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  354 Antipode activists and workers form coalitions with local capital owners—or perhaps even financial capital. The antagonistic groups in the King’s Cross development mostly cut across clear class categories. These coalitions are articulations of the complex interests and stakeholders within urban planning projects that do not always cater exclusively to actually existing class interests. Instead, the articulation of the conflicting groups in King’s Cross are in line with the contemporary neoliberal emphasis on “community”. Neoliberalism and the Discourse of Community in London Recent neoliberal transformations in London have been well documented, and will not be subject to much discussion here. Various accounts describe these, usually in bipolar terms, as changes from “Fordism” to “neo-Fordism” (Knox and Pinch 2006), from “modernism to postmodernism” (Harvey 1989), from “Keynesian cities” to “postFordist cities” (Short 1996:79), and from “embedded liberalism” to “neoliberalism” (Harvey 2005). The city of London has been central to these transformations, and changed from an “industrial” to a “postindustrial” city (Hamnett 2005). A dominant feature of these changes for London has been the sedimentation of hegemony for financial capital (Harvey 2005). The hegemonic shift from industrial to financial capital is crucial to understanding developments in the planning policy of London. This hegemony has been seen as part of a new class project driving social change in global cities (Harvey 2005; Toulouse 1991). These changes have impacted on political organizing strategies, particularly for labor. Flexibility in labor relations is a central element of the neoliberal policy regime and accounts of contemporary capitalism (Jessop 1994; Lash and Urry 1987). Some of the responsibilities of the national state have been distributed to multilateral and local institutions that are typically less vulnerable to the organizing strategies of national labor unions (Brenner 2004; Gibson-Graham 2006:46; Peck and Tickell 2003; Swyngedouw 2004). There seems to have been a shift in power relations between employers and workers in which the former have been emboldened by neoliberal policies that have given them the ability to relocate geographically (Wills 2001). In short, the “structural context” of collective political organization is changing (Cerny 1995:595; Haarstad 2007), and we will argue that this is manifested in that the opposition to the planned development at King’s Cross is articulated as “community” rather than “labor”. New classes of migrant and temporary workers that have emerged in cities such as London fall below the scope and strategies of traditional labor unions, and “community unions” have in some cases tried to fill this void (Fine 2005; May et al 2007). A disproportionate number of London’s low-paid jobs are now filled by foreign-born workers, and the  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London 355 new “migrant division of labor” creates challenges for organization (May et al 2007). Planning policy in London has promoted these changes, as it has sought to strengthen the position of London as a financial world city. The London Plan 2004 asserts that the fundamental factor driving change in London’s employment structure during the last 30 years has been “the gain of 600,000 jobs in business services and the loss of 600,000 jobs in manufacturing” (London Plan 2004:26). It projects that the business service sector will make the most significant contribution to economic growth in London over the next 15 years, with 440,000 further jobs, just over half of all new jobs created. The attraction of financial capital was consolidated under Tony Blair, as New Labour embraced neoliberalism with a friendly face. Jones and Ward (2002:141) argue that New Labour’s urban white paper has a “policy gene” and a content that are heavily reminiscent of the previous urban white paper. New Labour promoted a somewhat contradictory policy of, on the one side endorsing community-led initiatives (see DETR 1998) and on the other, reorganizing the Department of Trade and Industry with an aim to increase the voice of business in economic policy formulation and implementation (Jones and Ward 2002). As an expression of the contemporary preoccupation with the notion of “community” in planning is the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (ODPM 2004) that was introduced into the English planning system. The SCI introduced a requirement that the Local Planning Authority produce a policy statement on how they will engage with communities in developing planning policy (Mace 2007). In turn, both community involvement and the promotion of financial business interests are central elements of contemporary planning discourses on London. These discourses arguably obscure class conflicts, in particular since the “community” category is ambiguous towards class identities. It can be argued that this is in large part the reason that the notion of “community” has integrated so well within neoliberal policy discourses. The empirics for the analysis are based on fieldwork in London between August and December 2006, including semi-structured interviews with actors in the conflict, the collection of relevant documents and reports and participant observation in various meetings. The focus on class interests influenced the fieldwork by orienting interviews towards interviewees with a range of class positions rather than a random survey of opinions. The interviewees broadly represent the main interests in the planning process. King’s Cross Development and Economic Antagonisms The terminal station for the Channel Tunnel Railway Link (CTRL) from Paris and Brussels opened at the end of 2007 at St Pancras station in London. King’s Cross Central is located in the London Borough of  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  356 Antipode Camden, bordering the Borough of Islington. Among England’s top100 “most deprived wards” we find 24 out of Camden’s 26 wards and the unemployment in Camden is at 7%, while the average in London is 4% (Tewdwr-Jones, Morphet and Allmendinger 2006). According to Camden’s Community Strategy from 2001, King’s Cross is one of these deprived areas in the Borough (Camden 2001). But Camden is also a polarized borough. According to Camden’s Community Strategy, “[the] gap between the most and least deprived wards in Camden is bigger than anywhere else in London” (Camden 2001:6). The development of the terminal station for the Paris–London Railway in King’s Cross has been a process spanning about two decades. The London Regeneration Consortium submitted the first application for planning permission to the Borough of Camden in 1989, also at that time with a large amount of office space. In 1991 the Environmental Commissioner instructed the King’s Cross development to halt because of an inadequate Environmental Assessment. Organized resistance and unwilling local politicians delayed the process on technical grounds until the crash in the property market in 1992 made the project undesirable. Alternatives for routes and terminals were evaluated in 1993, whereby St Pancras and an overland connection from Stratford were favored. After the property market recovered, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill passed in Parliament in 1995 for a largely tunneled route into the St Pancras station. London and Continental Railways (LCR) won the competitive bid. Instead of “normal” subsidies in return for building the rail, LCR received fixed assets, ie railway stations, trains and land areas along the route with the right to develop these for profit. In an article, The Guardian (1 March 1996) called the deal “the great railway give-away”, and estimated the total value of the subsidy at £5.7 billion. The main local planning authority is Camden, and Camden is obviously operating in a policy context where it is subordinated to the Greater London Authority and the British state. According to LCR, the development is the biggest ever single construction project in Britain, and more than £9 billion will be invested in the areas adjacent to the new stations (interview, media contact, LCR). The 67 acres of land that this paper is concerned with, that is the King’s Cross Central, is one of those areas of land received by LCR as a subsidy. The site at King’s Cross is currently developed by an “ownership vehicle” owned in part by LCR (35%), Exel (15%) and Argent (50%). Argent is the development enterprise, receiving shares in the vehicle as payment. The 67 acres are divided in two by a canal that goes from east to west. South of the canal there will be mostly offices, and north of the canal will host housing, a University of Arts, plazas, and a community house, among other things. The development has been controversial locally. Various “community groups” involved themselves in the planning process as stakeholders. One of these is the King’s Cross Railway Lands Group (KXRLG),  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London 357 an umbrella organization with more than a hundred members (both private members and organizations) which has been in existence for over 20 years. The KXRLG has been the group most actively trying to influence the planning and development process. Cally Rail Group is another local “community group”, but in contrast to the KXRLG it has a geographical basis, ie around Cally Road. Other stakeholder groups are the King’s Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee (KXCAAC), Regents Canal Network, the Green Party and the Islington Bangladeshi Association. These stakeholder groups also involve local capital interests. In turn, “community” is constituted by groups that cannot easily be conceptualized along class lines. KXRLG or the local community do not directly represent a class and have never articulated its demands in terms of “class”. Yet in relation to Katznelson’s fourth layer of class, collective action, the KXRLG arguably articulates interests and organizes actions in contrast to the property owners and developers, in other words, some kind of non-accumulators’ class interests. These interests stand in antagonistic relations to the interests of property owners on several aspects within the planned development. A more class-sensitive articulation of these interests could therefore potentially fracture “community” as constituted in King’s Cross. These are aspects of the development process that contain clear class effects. Three aspects will be closely looked at here: the amount of office space; flexibility in the plans; and the appropriation of urban environment as exchange value or use value. Offices Space and Class Argent has applied to construct buildings at up to 853,195 m2 of the main site. As much as 455,510 m2 of this is regulated as “Business and employment”, which is mainly office space. A study published by the KXRLG and the University College of London in 1989 showed that of the types of land use considered, office space was clearly the most profitable (KXRLG 1989). The office market has more than recovered after its crisis in the early 1990s, so it can be assumed that office space is still today the most profitable type of construction (Hamnett 2005). An architect from King’s Cross Central stated that the development of office space would be the most profitable (interview). This is partly due to the nature of the site, since the site is in a suitable office location close to the city centre and close to an exceptional transport junction (interview, Chief Executive, Argent). As mentioned above, attracting offices to London is part of official policy, and the dominance of the office-based financial sector in London’s employment and economic projections has made the availability of suitable office accommodation a critical issue (London Plan 2004:90). The development can in turn be  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  358 Antipode seen as part of the strategy of strengthening London as an international financial centre. The dominance of office space within the development makes class antagonisms visible. Stakeholder groups such as the Islington Bangladeshi Association have raised the concern that the current development would “not bring meaningful employment opportunities to their young people—essentially, high level jobs would import labour from other parts of labour leaving local people to—at best—fill low skill positions” (Mace 2007:20). Two decades ago, dominated classes in London normally had access to skilled industrial jobs (Hamnett 2005), but the hegemonic shift in London where financial capital replaced industrial capital has resulted in a highly segmented and polarized labor market where locals will mostly be recruited into employment such as cleaning and other lower service sector jobs. According to one community activist with a minority background, this development is welcome among local foreign-born “housewives” who do not always speak English very well. They seek to occupy these lower service sector jobs (interview, activist). These jobs stand in sharp contrast to the high-wage financial sector jobs that are planned to be generated in the office buildings. Lower service sector jobs dominated by immigrants and temporary workers are notoriously difficult to organize (May et al 2007). A dominance of office space within the development is likely to squeeze out “traditional” organized working class employment.1 In responses to a large consultation conducted by Camden in 2004, the “common answer” was that “commercial office space should be reduced as a proportion of the development” (Camden 2005:9). Also the KXRLG has argued for a reduced scale of development, and in order to: obtain a more mixed, balanced and sustainable profile of land uses, the office component is the obvious candidate for reduction. The more business floor space provided, the less, within a finite total, is available for other uses (e.g. housing, community, leisure and recreation etc) all of which have commanded strong support and if anything most people would like to see increased (KXRLG 2006a:3). Flexibility in the Planning Process The developer has never been committed to build a precise number of buildings for particular uses, but an application is granted where they might build up to a certain number of square meters for the different uses (ARUP 2004). The plans are designed to allow the developer to change plans according to market fluctuations, which local stakeholders argue negates democratic oversight and accountability. Retaining flexibility in the approved development plans is a central strategy for longterm profitability for Argent. As their Chief Executive explained, to avoid bankruptcy in the event of a crisis, plans allow for a shift in  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London 359 building for different types of uses “because crashes in the [different property] markets normally don’t come at the same time” (interview, Chief Executive, Argent). And yet, according to a planning officer from Camden, this flexibility cannot be used by planning authorities to shift direction in the project according to changes in the social context (interview, planning officer). The KXRGL held that by allowing for a flexible process, the planning authorities were: abrogating their responsibility to consider successive stages of development in the light of developers’ performance in earlier stages, changing government policy and changes in the London context (KXRLG 2006a:4). What is criticized is not flexibility as such, but that the flexibility is controlled by Argent and not by the local planning authority. An activist from the Cally Rail Group relates differently to “flexibility”: “the problem with this scheme is that it’s both huge and amorphous” (activist, quoted in Evening Standard 12 March 2007). Local residents experienced Argent’s flexibility as uncertainty. The planning process allows for flexibility in maximizing economic return for property owners but little or no flexibility in allowing for changes according to other types of concerns. This processual distinction structures the planning process to the benefit of accumulating interests. Exchange Values and Use Values in the Urban Environment Another distinction within the development is that between urban space as exchange value and urban space as use value (Lefebvre 1973).2 In other words, there is a difference between groups that appropriate space for the purpose of accumulating capital and groups that appropriate space as a place to live and work. This is manifested in the conflict between shaping King’s Cross to maximize capital accumulation and shaping it according to non-accumulative concerns. Stakeholder groups campaigned strongly to mitigate the environmental effects of both the development process and the final result. Environmental concerns are points of contention between developers and community groups, as the latter have argued that locals bear excessive costs in the development process. Argent pushed for tall buildings and privately owned streets, while KXRLG argued for the need for a “satisfactory townscape”. The Cally Rail Group campaigned against the noise from the building of the CTRL, arguing that the locals “paid” undue costs for a development that eventually could price them out of the area, bankrupt local shops, and “leave them what? Starbucks?” (activist at King’s Cross Development Forum, 28 September 2006). The community groups achieved some campaign victories on this issue, such  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  360 Antipode as a “mitigation package”, the installment of new windows and a stop to the 24-hour work day (interview, activist). The development is planned to necessitate the demolition of historical buildings to accommodate the increased flow of traffic caused by the redevelopment. Argent wanted to replace the Culross building and one of the two Stanley buildings (Figure 1). An official from the Borough of Camden explained that the buildings stop the flow between south and north. There will be 2 way buses and a tram through this house . . . They are interesting buildings. But 450 taxis will drive through every hour, and therefore we need a new road through one of the Stanley buildings. And we got money for building the road now; therefore we need to demolish the buildings (interview, planning officer). The two buildings that must be demolished are also located south of the canal, which is where the offices—the main source of accumulated capital—will be built. The King’s Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee (KXCAAC) on the other hand, has fought for years to protect these houses. KXCAAC argues that the houses are of great historical significance because they are very early “workers’ dwellings”, modern and special in their time. The developers aim to replace the historical buildings with new fixed capital construction—ie offices and a road—designed for continued accumulation. Yet the community groups wished to retain the buildings for their non-accumulative use values. The KXRLG argued that tall buildings and dense massing have adverse consequences for “the setting and character of listed buildings and the Conservation Areas”, and aimed for a “satisfactory townscape with adequate permeability and open spaces” (KXRLG 2006a:4). Agents and Class Interests Although class identities are not articulated explicitly through the conflict surrounding the King’s Cross development, distinct class interests are embedded in the development process. Antagonistic lines of division can be drawn between accumulating interests (appropriating urban space as exchange value, some of which may benefit from flexibility to accommodate market changes and aim to maximize office space) and non-accumulating interests (appropriating space as use value). But conflictual lines can also be drawn between intermediate positions of accumulation. Distinctions can be made between agents aiming to appropriate the urban space as exchange value. Argent is, for example, owned by British Telecom’s Pension Scheme and has committed itself to King’s Cross as a long-term investment, but this is not the case for the two other owners, LCR and Exel. Argent’s main aim is to circulate and accumulate capital through building fixed capital,  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London 361 Figure 1: Map of the contemporary site with the Stanley and Culross buildings marked (source: produced by Kjell H Sjøstrøm)  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  362 Antipode while LCR and Exel’s main aim is purely circulatory. Argent was not originally the owner of the land under development, but has negotiated the development with planning authorities on behalf of the ownership vehicle. This management structure of the vehicle may have influenced the development process towards longer-term concerns. According to an official from the Borough of Camden, Exel and LCR shape the process according to their need for short-term profit, while Argent’s interests as future landlords generate differences in what type of development process they promote. In one particular incident: [the] LCR and Exel have wanted to reduce the amount of money [the development vehicle] would give to Camden and Islington, for example for building roads. We had a debate with Argent, and Argent talked to the stakeholders [ie LCR and Exel], and Argent argued for more money to Camden and Islington (interview, planning officer). Another example of conflict within the same class is that local businesses can benefit from increased capital inflows and economic activity in the area, but also risk being squeezed out of the property market. This was highlighted by a local magazine covering the development in an article headlined “Independent business could stand to benefit from the development—if they survive” (Cross Section 2006:27). For local residents, the changes in the property market have been a central concern. According to a local resident and activist: Property developers tell us that we are sitting on a gold mine. But that depends on if you want to move or not. We would get something big if we moved a long way out. But if you want to stay you earn nothing, but you could sell and buy something similar or smaller (interview, activist). Changes in the property market also divide the non-accumulating classes. Homeowners might get increased prices for their homes if they sell, while increased housing rents might “gentrify away” those who do not own property. Table 1 summarizes the class interests of the main agents in the conflict, in order to illustrate economic and class interests within the King’s Cross development. The table aims to localize the functions of the agents (following Edwards 1995), and relate their interests to fixed capital (place) and circulating capital (space) (following Merrifield 1993). Antagonism Versus Consensus in Planning Community involvement has been the ideal throughout the King’s Cross development. In addition to the official participatory process managed by the Borough of Camden, there have been several rounds of consultation and surveys organized by the Boroughs of Camden and  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London 363 Table 1: Agents, functions and class interests in the King’s Cross development Agent Function Class interest in built environment. Fixed capital—place Class interest in general. Circulating capital—space Owned by BTPS’s pension fund—defend private sector workers’ pensions through capitalist capital accumulation Capitalist company that provides international shipping and logistics of documents and freight Consortium—established to build the CTRL, earn money and sell everything off. Must through a “secret deal” also share some profit with the state Non-accumulators, ie “labor” Argent Developer, financer, becoming landlord Long-term capital investment. As developer they hire construction capital and architects Exel Landlords LCR Landlords Short-term capital investment. Extract land rent. In King’s Cross only as speculator Short-term capital investment. Extract land rent. Also external effect as owners of nearby property KXRLG Community group KXCAAC KXBF Promote conservation of historical buildings Local capital, LB of Camden organized “Business Coordinator” Cally Rail Group Community/ residential project “Use value”—in Lefebvre’s terms. Articulates a position of the dominated classes. With Harvey: “consumption, personal reproduction and maybe expand” “Use value” in Lefebvre’s terms. Their interests contrast with the accumulators Place to enhance production and sell products and services “Use value”. Homeowners might benefit economically None Capital in general. Also gaining from “trickle down effect”, though often limited geographical possibilities None Islington, academics, local residents, the King’s Cross Business Forum, King’s Cross Development Forum and Argent itself. The King’s Cross Development Forum was established so that community groups can join in and “shape their future”. Camden wrote in 2004 that the community involvement in relation to the King’s Cross Development should be  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  364 Antipode “two-way, with all stakeholders both talking and listening” (Camden and Islington 2004:9). According to a Camden planning officer speaking at a meeting on 28 September 2006: So far the Forum has remained a constant presence throughout the process, has developed planning and other interests and knowledge, and is an interesting arena for consultation and a range of local communities available for discussion (Camden’s King’s Cross Team’s Meeting Notes). Yet the communication between developers, planners and stakeholders at a meeting in November 2006 was more in the form of questions and answers than two-way dialogue (personal observation). While questions were asked by the Forum’s members, the officers responded and “explained” the reality of the project. For example, a Forum participant asked whether a simpler version of the Section 106 agreement could be provided, as the current version is 546 pages long and not readily accessible for community members. The answer was simply that “no, everything in it is needed”. To another question on whether more space could be provided for youth within the plans, the answer was that there is sufficient space they can use, and this should be discussed further later in the process. A third question on how locals can use the University of Arts was also excluded as a matter for the participatory planning process. The planning process had excluded these and other issues from participatory involvement, often by appealing to activists to understand the “realities” faced by the developers. Communication seemed highly structured by the positions of the “speaker” and lack of practical accountability. The community activists also experienced the situation this way, and one said in an interview that “today, there is a lot of participation on paper, so we have participated for 20 years, but they don’t have to listen. They just have to show us that they have read what we wrote”. He also said that communication is an important democratic principle, but “as a principle for planning it is just process and ignores the power issues in the status quo” (interview, activist). Another conceded that there is some power in the King’s Cross Development Forum, for example through the right to consultation on all planning applications, but added that “when it comes to power, it’s Camden and [the Chief Executive of Argent] that counts” (interview, activist). A former Camden planner who is now an academic called the public consultation a “rubber stamping exercise” (interview, researcher and former planner). The structure of public consultation appears to delimit participatory influence. Community activists use the channels available, but are still frustrated with the lack of influence on one hand, and the legitimacy given to the development process by the fact that the channels exist on the other. Although the locals have won some  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London 365 “victories” through campaigning, for the most past the premises seem to be established beforehand and are not accessible for community input. There seems to be a processual gap between consultation and influence, which can also be discerned within planning theory’s preoccupation with “communication” and a lack of recognition of economic antagonisms. The developers considered the participation as interference by individuals, rather than a representation of community interests. This is indicated by a statement from Argent’s Chief Executive: We must work hard to protect our objectives from a tiny minority of obsessed people. They’re compulsive and have a disorder syndrome. They don’t like the private sector, or the public sector. They don’t like the establishment . . . There is a dozen, bright people who frustrate us (interview). Another way of looking at KXRLG is as a well-organized political body which has been around for 20 years, and which has organized hundreds of members and contains a lot of expertise. The fact that the developer Argent, represented here by its Chief Executive, has such a view on the “others participants” in the communicative planning process indicates how the communicative planning process functions in practice. The King’s Cross Business Forum is operative to promote the interests of local business interests, supported by the London Development Agency, and is recognized in the consultation process as a legitimate actor. For instance, when a phone service was set up in order to put local workers, stakeholders and shop owners in touch with another so that locals might get local jobs, this was done under the Business Forum rather than the Development Forum. The consultation process can be seen as an articulation of class interests where business interests are articulated as such, while labor interests are embedded in the classambiguous category of “community”. Instead of class issues, opposing interests are linked to the notion of “community”. Cally Rail Group defines itself as an “unfunded community group formed nearly twelve years ago” (Cally Rail Group 2006:8). KXRLG defines itself as a “local group made up of community groups and individuals living and working in Camden and Islington” (KXRLG 2006b:12). King’s Cross Business Forum “aims to draw the local business community together acting as a voice for business through our activities” (Camden 2006:21). Argent argues that “KXC [King’s Cross Central] will deliver benefits to existing local communities” (Argent St George 2001:23). And finally, the Borough of Camden argues that the King’s Cross Development Forum is “run by [Camden] on behalf of the local communities”. The case of King’s Cross is a materialization of the conflict between the theory of consensus and an experience of antagonism. There are distinct class conflicts within the development process that structure the communicative process according to the interests of capital  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  366 Antipode accumulation. These conflicts can be seen as existing on an abstract structural level (Katznelson’s first layer of class), manifested as power asymmetries in the planning process (second layer), experienced as clear antagonistic interests (third layer), and practiced through community activism and campaigning (fourth layer). The development and its planning process have clear class effects, but structure these as a sort of friction between participants in the consultations and the “realities” faced by the development. Class conflicts are obscured in the process, and accommodating these interests is precluded from participatory influence by the structure of communicative planning. Conclusion We initially made the claim that critiques of the communicative turn in planning did not properly account for class antagonisms, and that conceptualizations should be developed to understand how class antagonisms structure planning processes. These conceptualizations should take as their point of departure that different groups have antagonistic relations within processes of capital accumulation, and that these antagonisms cannot be overcome merely through proper communication. A class-sensitive analysis of a development project should begin with a mapping of the class interests of different groups, which opens up an understanding of how these interests structure the planning process itself. We argued for a theory of how class interests are layered and thereby complexly articulated in actual conflicts. In King’s Cross we looked at three aspects of the planning process to exemplify the mechanisms by which a planning process is structured towards particular class interests. We looked at the amount of office space, flexibility in the plans, and the appropriation of the urban environment as exchange or use value. These aspects were external to the communicative process, which functioned largely through informing citizens of plans already made. In turn, class interests structured the development project in much more fundamental ways than the communicative process. We take this as empirical support of the need for what might be called class-sensitive planning theory and class-sensitive politics in planning practice. With issues of class and economic antagonisms virtually absent from the discourse on the King’s Cross project, the opposition groups to the project are articulated as “community groups”, a class-ambiguous category. On the other hand, business interests are articulated as such, for example through the King’s Cross Business Group. There is little or no antagonistic relation between these two categories of interests, since “community” also involves local business. The political effect of this discourse is that no antagonistic relations are articulated against business/capital interests, which is in line with the neoliberal dogma that “what is good for business is good for everyone”. It can  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London 367 be hypothesized that “community” is only one of a range of classambiguous categories that have become widespread lately because they serve neoliberal discourses that promote economic rationality rather than economic antagonisms in the governance of society. If correct, this observation should imply a more critical engagement with central concepts of communicative planning theory and practice. As our mapping of class interests in an urban redevelopment project shows, the planning discourse has clear class effects. Three strategies for reinserting class into planning theory and practice can be proposed. The first strategy is the acknowledgement that capitalism is based on economic antagonisms. When identifying “needs” in planning theory or practice, it is important to ask, whose needs? In contrast to contemporary assumptions where “communities” are the subjects and where “consensus” is an ideal (as in the King’s Cross Development), we would argue that one should recognize and consider antagonisms like class. The second strategy is to take into account the dialectics and interdependence between different social, economic and political spheres. This involves the acknowledgement that economic rationality is embedded in these spheres and that (at least a theoretical) coherence with social and political spheres should be aimed for. Marcuse called the contemporary lack of this acknowledgement the “problem with pragmatism” (Marcuse 2007). In King’s Cross, for example, it is obvious that the problem of unemployment arises as an effect of broader socio-economic and political processes, and that housing issues are interdependent with overarching processes of law, the state and the economy. It follows that the point of departure for planning must be beyond particular projects; it must be conceived as a dialectic relation with general tendencies in society. The third strategy is then to take standpoints in antagonisms like class. A socially just policy on this is to take a standpoint for the dominated classes. Gunder (2003) takes the normative standpoint that one should aim to plan “for the joy of the Others’ desire”, and contemporary planning discourses make normative standpoints for “communities” and “investment climates”. In the conflict surrounding the King’s Cross development, initiatives were taken to promote local business and communities, but not the dominated classes. These examples show that standpoints are prevalent in planning, but economic antagonisms are currently not considered bases for legitimate standpoints. The planning process at King’s Cross or the planning status quo as such are in effect not any less political than a standpoint for the dominated classes, they are just favoring different classes. Class-sensitive planning would involve turning planning theory and practice towards a concern for how urban development projects can promote consciousness around social issues and (more) equal distributions of economic value.  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  368 Antipode Acknowledgements The Radical Geography Group in Bergen, particularly Kari Anne Drangsland, provides spaces for thinking critically about geography. Judith Allen, Michael Edwards, Arild Holt-Jensen and Peter Marcuse helped shape the ideas. Guy Baeten, Noel Castree and three anonymous reviewers provided constructive comments that significantly improved a late version of this paper. Endnotes 1 This opens the arena for two very different classes: the (often foreign-born) cleaners and the (also often foreign-born) financial sector middle class, and neither are likely to organize. 2 Lefebvre treats these categories as ways of relating to space, which diverges from Marx’s use which describes forms of the commodity. References Allen J (1986) Smoke over the Winter Palace—the politics of resistance and London’s community areas. Occasional Papers - University of Westminster 1(4):72 Allmendinger P and Tewdwr-Jones M (2002) The communicative turn in urban planning: Unravelling paradigmatic, imperialistic and moralistic dimensions. Space and Polity 6(1):5–24 Amdam J and Veggeland N (1998) Teorier om Samfunnsplanlegging. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Argent St George (2001) Parameters for Regeneration. Work in Progress for King’s Cross Central. London: Argent ARUP (2004) King’s Cross Central—Regeneration Strategy. London: Argent St George, LCR, Exel Brenner N (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press Cally Rail Group (2006) Response to Argent King’s Cross Revised Outline Planning Applications for King’s Cross Central in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington. London: Cally Rail Group Camden LBo (2001) Camden’s Community Strategy. London: London Borough of Camden Camden LBo (2005) King’s Cross Central Development—Initial Survey Of Consultation Results. London: London Borough of Camden Camden LBo (2006) Replacement Unitary Development Plan. London: London Borough of Camden Camden LBo and Islington LBo (2004) King’s Cross Opportunity Area. Planning & Development Brief . London: London Borough of Camden Cerny P (1995) Globalization and the changing logic of collective action. International Organization 49(4):595–625 Cross Section (2006) Profit and loss. September DETR (1998) Community-based regeneration initiatives: A working paper. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London Edwards M (1995) Agents and functions in urban development: Frameworks for analysis. Cartas Urbanas 4:26–39 Edwards M, MacDonald K, Newman P and Thornley A (1992) A vision for London. In Thornley A (ed) The crisis of London (pp 185–201). London: Routledge Fainstein S (2000) New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review 35(4):451– 478  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  Urban Redevelopment at King’s Cross, London 369 Fine J (2005) Community unions and the revival of the American labor movement. Politics & Society 33(1):153–199 Flyvbjerg B (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Flyvbjerg B and Petersen V (1983) Planning Theory—Theoretical Considerations on the Analysis of Public Policy and Planning. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press Gibson-Graham J K (2006) The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Gunder M (2003) Passionate planning for the others’ desire: An agonistic response to the dark side of planning. Progress in Planning 60:235–319 Haarstad H (2007) Collective political subjectivity and the problem of scale. Contemporary Politics 13(1):57–74 Habermas J (1993) Justification and Application—Remarks on Discourse Ethic. London: MIT Press Hamnett C (2005) Unequal City—London in the Global Arena. London: Routledge Harvey D (1978) Labor, capital, and class struggle around the built environment in advanced capitalist societies. In K R Cox (ed) Urbanization and Conflict in Market Societies (pp 9–37). London: Methuen & Co Harvey D (1985) The Urbanization of Capital. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Harvey D (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry Into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Harvey D (1999) The Limits to Capital. London: Verso Harvey D (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press Healey P (1996) Planning theory debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. In S Campbell and S Fainstein (eds) Readings in planning theory (pp 234–257). Oxford: Blackwell Healey P (1999) Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(19):111–121 Jessop B (1994) Post-Fordism and the state. In A Amin (ed) Post-Fordism: A Reader (pp 251–279). Oxford: Blackwell Jones M and Ward K (2002) Excavating the logic of British urban policy: Neoliberalism as the “crisis of crisis-management”. In N Brenner and N Theodore (eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism—Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe (pp 126–147). Oxford: Blackwell Katznelson I (1993) Marxism and the City. Oxford: Clarendon Press Knox P and Pinch S (2006) Urban Social Geography—An Introduction. Essex: Pearson KXRLG (1989) The King’s Cross Development—People or Profit? London: King’s Cross Railway Lands Community Development Group KXRLG (2006a) Dear Mr Prescott. Letter, 29 March. King’s Cross Railway Lands Group KXRLG (2006b) Network—The Quarterly Journal of the Kings Cross Railway Lands Group. London: Kings Cross Railway Lands Group Lash S and Urry J (1987) The End of Organized Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press Lefebvre H (1973) Det Bymæssige Rums Produktionsproces. Arkitekturteoretisk kompendierække. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetet Lefebvre H (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell London Plan (2004) The London Plan. Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. London: Mayor of London Mace A (2007) “Making the hard-to-reach harder to reach. The role of statements of community involvement in planning King’s Cross.” Unpublished manuscript Marcuse P (2007) “Socialism in the ideologies of urban planning.” Unpublished manuscript Marx K (1990) Capital Volume I. London: Penguin  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation  370 Antipode May J, Wills J, Datta K, Evans Y, Herbert J and McIlwaine C (2007) Keeping London working: Global cities, the British state and London’s new migrant division of labour. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 32(2):151–167 Merrifield A (1993) Place and space: A Lefebvrian reconciliation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 18(4):516–531 Naustadalslid J (1991) Kommunal Styring—Innføring i Kommunalkunnskap Frå ein Planleggingssynstad. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget ODPM (2004) Planning Policy Statement 12—Local Developments Frameworks. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Peck J and Tickell A (2003) Searching for a new institutional fix: The after-Fordist crisis and the global-local disorder. In A Amin (ed) Post-Fordism: A Reader (pp 280–315). Oxford: Blackwell Short J (1996) The Urban Order. Malden, MA: Blackwell Skjeggedal T (2005) Ambitions and realities in Norwegian regional planning. European Planning Studies 13(5):731–748 Smith N (1991) Uneven Development—Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Swyngedouw E (2004) Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17(1):25–48 Tewdwr-Jones M, Morphet J and Allmendinger P (2006) The contested strategies of local governance: Community strategies, development plans, and local government modernisation. Environment and Planning A 38(3):533–551 Toulouse C (1991) Thatcherism, class politics, and urban development in London. Critical Sociology 18(1):55–76 Wills J (2001) Community unionism and trade union renewal in the UK: Moving beyond the fragments at last? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26(4):465–483 Yiftachel O and Huxley M (2000) Debating dominance and relevance: Notes on the “communicative turn” in planning theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24(4):907–913  C 2009 The Authors C 2009 Editorial Board of Antipode. Journal compilation