Constructive discussion and city-making: discursive dynamics and opportunities to influence housing outcomes in Sydney, Australia

This paper offers a transdisciplinary and socio-cultural exploration into the way cities are planned and governed. It focuses on the concept of “constructive discussion” and uses the housing system of Sydney, Australia as a case study. Mobilising qualitative analysis of interviews with people that influence, or represent, key sectors of the public in relation to housing, the paper has two aims. First, it presents an analysis of how constructive discussion appears to relate to housing issues in Sydney. Doing so shows how constructive discussion can provide a new vantage point to consider and conceptualise complex social issues influencing governance and planning in cities. In our case, a focus on constructive discussion enabled ideation of social interventions and democratic innovations that complement technical and policy responses and understand Sydney’s ‘housing system’. We document both the diagnosis, and potential responses, in the paper. Most broadly, the paper shows that a focus on constructive discussion can offer new insights for researchers and practitioners seeking to achieve transformative system change in urban and democratic contexts. Our research emerged from a transdisciplinary collaboration between university academics and civil society actors in Sydney, Australia and we propose the ongoing integration of systems science, socio-cultural perspectives and transformative agendas can benefit from such endeavours. Constructive Discussion” is a boundary concept that can invite nuanced discussion and new perspectives on social issues in Australian democracy. Constructive Discussion helped orient researchers and interview participants in ways that helpfully identified dynamics occurring in a complex system and potential opportunities for transformative change. Our diagnosis, based on qualitative and co-produced research, identified a series of issues and potential interventions that could improve systemic resilience in Australia’s housing system and improve the level of Construction Discussion in decision-making about urban futures. Further research is required to test and validate potential interventions, and Constructive Discussion could benefit from further conceptual development and co-produced exploration and experiments. • A lack of Constructive Discussion is expressed in structural, institutional and communicative issues. These issues are influencing the quality of social outcomes produced by Australia’s housing system. • A long list of potential interventions is available to help build Constructive Discussion and improve how housing is being discussed and governed in Sydney and in Australia. • Most importantly, Australia’s approach to housing lacks a clear narrative about its overarching goals –we need to define the purpose of the housing system and there are systemic, institutional, cultural, and communicative interventions that might help to bring this about.