1Within contemporary societies, where means of communication have become ubiquitous, managing messaging has never been more important. Urban planners and elected officials have therefore increasingly adopted narrative tools and strategies to defend, or even co-create, planning strategies. Beginning in the early 1990s (e.g. Mandelbaum 1991; Throgmorton 1992; Healey 1992), this ‘narrative turn’ has sparked a scholarly debate centered primarily around two opposing views. The first group of scholars (Mandelbaum 1991; Healey 1992; 1997) considers that by fostering discussion around contradicting visions of the future, the narrative turn has resulted in more collaborative and bottom-up planning processes. According to this argument, planning documents and strategies which are developed in a narrative context tend to be more democratic because they arise from a collective process which requires planners and other decision makers to reflect on a plurality of envisioned futures. In a similar vein, recent studies have shown that sustainability narratives are now produced and disseminated by a growing number of stakeholders, thanks notably to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework (Chabay et al. 2019; Olwig 2021).
2On the other hand, a second group of scholars has kept a rather vertical and top-down vision of planning processes despite this narrative turn. These scholars argue that storytelling is a particularly powerful tool that planning authorities can use to persuade relevant stakeholders and the general public that their vision of the future is trustworthy and worth following (e.g. Throgmorton 1992; 1996; Salmon 2007). Therefore, even though the narrative turn is often associated with strengthening participative planning (Albert and Hahnel 1992; Forester 1999), this second group of scholars remains convinced that planning processes, and especially plan-making, remain articulated around a single vision of the future which has become more persuasive and therefore more legitimate than other visions (Campbell 2006; Hoch 2007; Westin 2022). According to this persuasive vision, narratives are regularly adjusted to better fit the location or context in which the planning takes place, but this adaptation process remains in the hands of planning authorities (Throgmorton 1992; Forester 1999; Sandercock 2003). This is even more true for sustainability narratives, as they must persuasively explain why citizens need to change their current behavior (e.g. Jones and Peterson 2018).
3The present article aims to move beyond this binary approach to the narrative turn’s effects on the planning process. In an era characterized by a hybridization of planning processes (Maeder 2020), plan-making (Matthey 2014), sustainability decision-making (Zavadskas et al. 2016), and urban governance modes (Gross 2017; Nielsen and Papin 2021), we argue that, instead of being opposed, the bottom-up and top-down conceptions of planning narratives rather coexist in contemporary societies. In some ways, our perspective aligns with the instrumental conception of the narrative developed by seminal scholars like Secchi (1984) or Forester (1982; 1999). However, in a highly entangled world, we are convinced that this instrumental perspective is partly outdated because it overestimates the abilities of planning authorities. More nuanced perspectives (Hopkins 2001; van Hulst 2012) have indeed emphasized the multiple constraints and uncertainties that authorities face throughout the planning process.
4Therefore, this article aims to investigate under which conditions planning and sustainability narratives can be turned into a resource by authorities to either mobilize people (bottom-up approach) or to persuade them (top-down approach). We also aim to identify how these narratives are produced and disseminated in reaction to external constraints faced by planning authorities. In doing so, we will focus primarily on changes related to narrative temporality and to the territorial scale associated with a given planning narrative. However, evaluating the reception and the effects of these narratives in a comprehensive manner remains outside of the scope of this paper.
5Two important characteristics of the Canton of Geneva make it relevant for our study. First, it was the first Swiss canton to implement an ambitious land planning policy aimed at reducing urban sprawl and protecting agricultural areas. Second, Geneva is the center of a cross-border agglomeration and has largely exported its urban growth to neighboring French municipalities since the 1970s. Therefore, the case of Geneva allows us to show that the transition toward a metropolitan narrative (territorial dimension) and the transition toward a sustainability narrative (ecological dimension) can be two closely interlinked processes.
6The remainder of the article is structured as follows. First, we present our theoretical framework which aims to nuance the top-down approach by investigating the simultaneous hybridization process of planning narratives related to a) their temporality and b) their territorial scale. Then, we present our empirical investigation in three main phases, each one being associated with a dominant narrative which remains, however, contested by other narratives. The first phase is mainly associated with the compact city narrative; the second one with the multipolar agglomeration narrative; and, finally, the third one with the greening of the metropolitan narrative. Finally, we reflect on the main evolutions observed across the three phases in the conclusion.
7In his seminal book Il raconto urbanistico, Secchi (1984) conceives planning narratives as tales in which planners play the role of heroes. This is because planners need to produce an appealing narrative anchored in the collective imagination to attract the support of citizens. Moreover, any ‘good’ planner or practitioner also needs to constantly adapt planning narratives to adequately balance citizens’ concerns and authorities’ objectives. However, the stance taken by Secchi (1984), Forester (1982; 1999) and other scholars who adopt a top-down view of the narrative turn (e.g. Throgmorton 1996; Hoch 2007; Westin 2022) is normative for two reasons. First, they consider that planners and planning authorities will always act for the common good. Second, they believe that planning authorities always have the capacity to develop and impose a narrative framework which articulates a single vision of the future.
8Yet, drawing on Salmon (2007) and Childs (2008), we argue that storytelling might serve the common good, but that it first and foremost serves governing elites. Nonetheless, following the transition from government to governance (Le Galès 1995 ; Rhodes 1997 ; Pierre and Peters 2000) and the hybridization dynamics of planning and plan-making processes (Matthey 2014 ; Maeder 2020), we hypothesize that planning authorities have now lost their ability, and sometimes even their willingness, to impose a unified vision of the future at a single location.
9However, we do not completely disagree with the top-down perspective of the narrative turn. On the contrary, we fully acknowledge that any planning narrative has a performative dimension (e.g. Uyttenhove et al. 2021) and that causal stories (Stone 1989; 2011), political discourses (Fairclough 2013), or project narratives (Sergeeva and Ninan 2023; Drompt and Lambelet 2025) can all become powerful narrative resources for authorities to orient and implement planning policies.
10Furthermore, recent studies have shown that discursive vagueness within planning documents has increasingly become a strategic resource, helping planning authorities a) to diminish tension and avoid open conflicts (Buhler 2021); or b) to avoid providing a specific timeline for a given transformation (Levy 2020). In other words, planning authorities do not systematically use planning narratives to advance and impose a single vision of the future. Sometimes, they might be caught by surprise (van Hulst 2012), face important implementation constraints (Flyvbjerg et al. 2003; Owens and Cowell 2011: chap. 2), or simply aim to plan for several possible futures (Healey 1997; Hopkins 2001). As a result, planning authorities may prefer to pause the planning process, roll back existing measures, or even develop a ‘fictional planning’ at a larger and more loosely defined scale to serve as a substitute for hiding real changes occurring in the urban fabric (Matthey 2011 ; Matthey et al. 2013). In sum, several scholars have already called the top-down approach into question by demonstrating that planning authorities use narratives for purposes that surpass the imposition of a single vision of the future within a well-defined location. Even when they do intend to project a unified vision of the future, planning authorities may not always be willing or able to craft and disseminate narratives which align with this vision.
11Pursuing this research effort reconsidering the top-down approach, this article aims to further investigate the circumstances under which planning and sustainability narratives can be constructed, adapted and hybridized. We will focus in particular on situations in which planning narratives are created or modified:
-
to defend a planning strategy established ex ante by planning authorities (as the top-down approach would predict); or
-
in reaction to external requirements (e.g. changes to the law) or events (e.g. unforeseen circumstances over which planning authorities have little control).
12Furthermore, we argue that these adaptation and hybridization processes are articulated around a temporal and a spatial dimension, and that these two dimensions can be subject to a process of simultaneous hybridization.
13To conduct our study, we will trace the evolution of these two narrative dimensions within master planning documents of the Canton of Geneva (Switzerland) since the 1970s. First, we will analyze the narrative temporalities to which the various documents refer and how these temporalities change from one document to the next. Second, we will analyze how the Genevan authorities have intentionally modified the territorial scale of reference within their planning documents, i.e. switching from the cantonal territory to the territory of the larger metropolitan area.
14In a recent and influential contribution, Lieven Ameel (2021: chap. 3) presents a typology which defines three main types of narratives.
-
Narratives for planning which are not produced by planners themselves and consist of all the ‘existing narratives of a location prior to planning, such as local everyday stories, artistic representations, or historical documents’ (Ibid.: 28).
-
Narratives in planning which encompass all ‘activities and documents emanating from a planning department or, more broadly, from actors in planning and policy’ (Ibid.). Planners usually mobilize narratives for planning to take a deep dive into a location and then adapt their narratives in planning to create a more convincing and realistic story. Thus, this second category aligns with the top-down, persuasive vision of the narrative defended by scholars like Throgmorton (1992) or Westin (2022). It will thus be at the core of our analysis since we focus on masterplans and other planning documents developed by the Genevan authorities.
-
Finally, narratives of planning consist of ‘the storytelling that takes place after or alongside (and sometimes considerably apart from), the actual planning processes – for example, by branding and media agencies, but also by locals’ (Ameel 2021: 29–30). This final category includes branding and place-making strategies as well as all narratives which aim to attribute a new identity to a location that is currently being or has recently been transformed.
15We consider Ameel’s (2021) typology to be a very useful analytical tool, and we especially appreciate that the analysis can be strengthened by combining or interrelating these three narrative types (Ibid.: 30). However, we would like to propose possible improvements to the typology. First, Ameel (2021) conceives planning as a continuous and unidirectional process with three clearly defined stages in which narratives play differing roles. Therefore, his three categories could be renamed a) narratives before planning; b) narratives during planning; and c) narratives after planning (Matthey 2023 : 88ss). Second, we want to emphasize that the evolution of narratives within urban planning processes creates overlaps not only in time (synchronicity), but also in causality. We contend that planning authorities simultaneously deal with both short- and longer-term constraints. Thus, we aim to show how the temporal and categorical distinctions of Ameel’s for, in, and of narratives are not as distinct as presented, since planning narratives often involve circularity and overlap between categories. Finally, similarly to top-down narrative scholars, Ameel (2021) considers that narratives in planning are exclusively produced by planners and public authorities, while narratives for planning are localized narratives planning authorities can draw on but do not produce themselves. In our view, the strict distinction between these two categories of narrative production fails to reflect the complexity of highly hybridized planning processes (Maeder 2020; 2022) in which temporal and spatial dimensions may overlap or evolve in a simultaneous way.
16Our longitudinal analysis will focus on masterplans and other planning documents produced by Geneva’s cantonal authorities. According to Ameel’s model, these would be considered narratives in planning. However, the Genevan authorities have also regularly used localized narratives anchored in the past (such as the compact city myth from the 1970s to the mid-1990s) or developed place-making strategies (notably to promote urban renewal projects included within the 2013 masterplan).
17We therefore propose to introduce two complementary forms of narrative to the typology developed by Ameel: project narratives and continuity narratives. Both are produced and disseminated by planning authorities, but do not conform to the temporal segmentation of Ameel’s conception of narratives in planning. Continuity and project narratives transcend these temporal distinctions and should be conceived of as a set of narrative dynamics which are in constant tension with one another throughout the entire planning process. Nonetheless, this dual category overlaps with Ameel’s typology instead of replacing it. We thus view it as a complementary, processual theorization drawn from our empirical analysis, rather than a theoretical substitution.
18We conceive the project narrative as being situated both in the narrative apparatus of an ongoing project, as well as in its discursive justification. At the same time, when it is clearly oriented toward the future the project narrative may also be a narrative of planning, as is the case for long-term territorial planning. Furthermore, this concept emphasizes that action is necessary, and that agreement must be reached, notably through the sharing and adoption of the narrative by other stakeholders. The project narrative thus overlaps with the persuasive storytelling theorized by Throgmorton (1992; 1996). It aims to break the status quo and build consensus around a narrative rupture, thereby producing new meaning and a new story.
19In contrast, the continuity narrative bridges Ameel’s narrative in and narrative for planning. Its main characteristic is its ability to plot territorial elements drawing on the place’s history, while simultaneously relying on former narratives in planning which have stabilized as memories of previous planning processes. Thus, the continuity narrative aims more or less explicitly to seek consensus on a form of territorial status quo by reshaping the narratives that already exist. It may sometimes materialize through the emergence of a new narrative, but it can also change the former meaning of reference narratives, thereby creating a form of retroactive continuity.
20The project narrative and the continuity narrative are deployed at different moments and through various techniques of emplotment, a strategy used to integrate specific events into a broader storyline to provide meaning, structure and coherence to a narrative (Ameel et al. 2023: 27ss). This process also gives a sense of causality to what would otherwise simply be an assemblage of disconnected events, time periods, and previous planning actions. The project narrative thus introduces new narrative threads by incorporating previously excluded contextual elements, a change of planning scales, or the inclusion of other actors in the story. Its emplotment has a disruptive narrative function. On the other hand, the continuity narrative seeks to interweave the current narrative thread with previous ones to ensure continuity and narrative homogeneity by tapping into common objectives, a spirit of the territory, or, more simply, by seeking to repeat or revitalize an existing plot structure. In this configuration, the emplotment technique acts as a stabilizer of the narrative.
21This article also investigates how planning and sustainability narratives can be used by authorities to modify the reference scale of a given planning process. This draws on the work of influential territorial scholars who have convincingly shown that determining the reference scale at which regional and metropolitan development should be planned and organized is a highly political, and often conflictual matter (e.g. Jessop 2019; Brenner 2019). In a similar vein, other scholars have demonstrated that these scalar dynamics also transform the way that cities and regions deal with sustainability issues (e.g. Debarbieux and Balsiger 2020) as well as the representation of these regions within citizens’ imaginations (e.g. Debarbieux and Vanier 2002).
22In parallel, political scientists have theorized the concept of venue shopping, which refers to the strategic targeting of different institutional levels or policy arenas by advocacy groups in an attempt to maximize their influence on political decision-making processes (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Pralle 2003). This venue-shopping strategy is particularly prevalent within federalist countries because they offer multiple decision-making layers which lobbyists may attempt to influence (e.g. Constantelos 2010).
23We argue that the scalar dimension of venue shopping strategies can also apply to governmental bodies and planning strategies, especially when authorities must deal with complex planning processes that might create controversies or have territorial repercussions at an undefined or ambiguous planning scale. In such cases, we expect planning authorities to rely on the creation and diffusion of new planning and sustainability narratives to modify the reference scale of their masterplans and to justify this change.
24Given the cross-border nature of Geneva’s metropolis, we also expect this scalar venue shopping to be closely related to the ability of the Genevan authorities to make the border visible or invisible within their planning narratives and strategies (see Sohn and Scott 2020). Finally, given that Geneva has largely exported its urban growth to neighboring France since the 1970s, this scalar and cross-border dimension of master planning will allow us to analyze the evolution of sustainability narratives related to the preservation of Geneva’s greenbelt, the Genevan authorities’ strategy to curb urban sprawl, or the recent emergence of narratives emphasizing the importance of the living environment.
25Our empirical analysis investigates the evolution of planning and sustainability narratives within the master planning documents produced by the Canton of Geneva (Switzerland) over a period of fifty years (1970s–2020s). We completed this documental analysis by conducting semi-structured interviews with cantonal planners and authorities – understood here as emitters of planning narratives (see Greimas and Courtès 1976: 437-38). Finally, we also took part in several participatory events organized by cantonal authorities from 2020 to 2024 such as the Explore festival, the Rencontres du développement [urban development gatherings] and the Quinzaine de l’urbanisme [urban planning fortnight]. This type of events has flourished in Geneva over the last fifteen years, and they tend to exacerbate the various narratives and emplotment techniques used by the Canton of Geneva to rebrand its development strategy (see Matthey 2014; Maeder 2020; Matthey et al. 2025). Participating in these events has thus allowed us to get a sense of the performative dimension of these planning narratives, notably by observing the various reactions they have generated among different stakeholder groups of Geneva’s planning processes.
26Our empirical corpus is composed of several planning documents produced by Genevan authorities, primarily cantonal masterplans which are legally-binding. Our empirical data also includes other strategic but non-legally binding documents, such as charters and strategic visions developed at the metropolitan level. The analysis also covers a selection of other planning-related documents, such as maps, photos and videos. We consider this corpus to be a state-led narrative in planning. Indeed, these narratives are part of a quest for intelligibility on the part of planners and authorities responsible for urban development. These documents are thus often produced and disseminated with the aim of establishing political consensus and garnering sufficient support for the planned projects and strategies, thereby securing public legitimacy.
27As these documents are also political discourses themselves, we must first highlight a distinction between discourse and narrative. Urban planning documents primarily contribute to the formation of a discourse. From a linguistic perspective, discourse refers to statements characterized by a form of intentionality, as they are produced by a speaking subject (an act of enunciation) and addressed to others (Charaudeau and Maingueneau 2002). However, different discursive practices reflect distinct uses of language by the speaker: from discourse-as-product to discourses-as-uses. Thus, we draw on Emile Benveniste (1966) to distinguish discourse, an enunciation explicitly addressing an audience and bearing traces of its production, from narrative, which is a more distanced and natural storytelling form. While narrative remains a form of discourse, it is primarily through its form that it can be differentiated – particularly in urban plans and the accompanying materials – from explicit argumentative discourse.
28The difficulty in our case stems from the fact that the materials analyzed, ranging from explanatory texts to maps and videos, alternate between argumentative discourse and narrative, as defined by Benveniste. Indeed, the distinction between discourse and narrative is not clear-cut. Our documentary corpus often includes explicitly pedagogical and argumentative sections, thus aligning with discourse, but occasionally shifts toward storytelling forms. Consequently, we encounter two types of narratives: a) narratives that do not take the form of a story but can still be identified as (dis)continuous narrative framing within which argumentative and technical discourses are embedded; and b) narratives in the form of a story, featuring one or more protagonists. To differentiate between these two narrative types, we draw on the work of Gérard Genette (1982), who was the first to distinguish between first- and second-degree narratives, a distinction which has since been highlighted further in planning discourse theories (e.g. Matthey et al. 2022).
-
First-degree narratives are embedded in technical urban planning documents which articulate a cultural, social, and/or economic vision of a given territory. In our interpretation, their primary role is not explicitly to tell a story but to communicate technical information to a specialized audience, such as planners and professionals, while giving context for a broader narrative. We believe that first-degree narratives can also encompass political and argumentative discourses, while remaining highly technical. To put it differently, first-degree narratives are implicit narratives that frame the story. Although they structure settings, plot, and characters, the narrative process unfolds without explicitly signaling that it is a narrative. They are narratives emanating directly from planning documents.
-
In our case, these first-degree narratives, disseminated within masterplans, alongside their encompassed explanations and discourses, are the backbone of Geneva’s cantonal and metropolitan planning. Empirically, this constitutes our entry point: an analysis a) of cantonal and metropolitan planning documents, b) of discourses observed during fieldwork, and c) of semi-structured interviews.
-
Second-degree narratives reinterpret technical documents into a more accessible format. Their purpose is to engage a wider audience, to ensure broader understanding of the plan’s vision and to shape how planning policies are perceived by the public. Simply put, second-degree narratives are explicit and self-conscious narratives: the storytellers let the public know that they are following a story by providing enunciative markers of storytelling, or by simply stating that a particular story is being told, whether of an individual or of a territory. In our corpus, these second-degree narratives consist mainly of stories that have a clear narrative structure, in Benveniste’s (1966) sense. They are often narratives emanating besides planning documents.
-
Second-degree narratives are less prevalent throughout our longitudinal study, as such stories are a relatively recent phenomenon in the field of planning (see Ameel 2021; Matthey 2014 ; Matthey et al. 2022). However, second-degree narratives are an important feature of recent planning documents, as illustrated in Geneva by the ‘Envie’ brochure and the Transboundary Territorial Vision. We have also noticed second-degree narratives in certain media accompanying the dissemination of plans, and by observing participatory planning events.
29By distinguishing first- and second-degree narratives, we aim to highlight continuity and change of significance conveyed by public authorities and planning professionals throughout the planning process. We also aim to investigate the dissemination mechanisms of these state-produced narratives. However, analyzing the reception of these narratives by other stakeholder groups goes beyond the scope of this article. It would have required many additional interviews and a much broader corpus of analyzed documents. Nonetheless, by showing the diachronic and interconnected nature of these state-produced narratives, our aim is to show the self-referential impact of planning narratives. Finally, our article retraces the evolution of the political and institutional context which informs the conditions under which these narratives were produced, even if we do not explore the outcomes generated by these narratives in detail.
30Figure 1 below presents the overall timeline of our analysis with its three main phases as well as the associated project and continuity narratives which can be found in each phase.
Figure 1 – Fifty years of planning narratives in Geneva (1975–2024) [Own elaboration]
31The compact city myth dates back to the era – from the mid-16th to the late 18th century – when Geneva was an autonomous and prosperous city-state surrounded by massive fortifications and a large agricultural belt. It first re-emerged in the 1930s when the very first cantonal masterplan proposed a substantial densification of the inner city to preserve enough green spaces and agricultural areas around Geneva. It was then paused during the modernist era of the 1950s and 1960s in which several villages were turned into new suburban cities, but it made a notable comeback from the early 1970s due to a combination of three main factors.
32First, the 1973 oil crisis significantly impacted Geneva’s economy. Within two years, the canton lost 10,000 jobs (Dubois and Royston 1991: 100). Second, anti-growth movements gained importance, especially within suburban municipalities which had to absorb most of the post-war urban growth of the canton. Finally, 1973 also marks the signature of a French-Swiss fiscal agreement specific to Geneva’s cross-border workers. This agreement, which remains valid today, is highly favorable to Geneva. It states that workers living in neighboring France and working in Geneva are taxed in Geneva. In exchange, each year the State of Geneva redistributes 3.5% of the cross-border salary mass to the French departments and municipalities in which cross-border workers live (Gaud 2016).
33Thanks to this agreement, the State of Geneva and its surrounding municipalities have a strong interest in concentrating their efforts into job creation, while letting neighboring French municipalities construct housing for new inhabitants. This strategy allows the Genevan authorities to maximize their tax revenues, while minimizing, at least partially, their investments in building costly infrastructure like social housing, schools, public parks and other public facilities. However, the Genevan authorities needed a territorial narrative legitimizing this externalization strategy. Instead of building a compelling project narrative, they simply decided to resuscitate the one which was the most closely associated with the history of the city.
34Therefore, in the early 1970s the compact city narrative made a notable comeback. The leitmotiv of the 1975 cantonal masterplan was ‘Building the city on the city’, i.e. densifying and renovating existing building zones and already equipped land plots, while strengthening the protection of agricultural and natural areas (DAEL 2003: 150–51). Environmental issues such as the increase of automobile transit and air pollution played an important role in this switch away from the modernist era (Joye and Kaufmann 1998: 95). However, to address those issues which are cross-border in nature, Genevan cantonal authorities paradoxically adopted a withdrawal strategy in terms of land planning. This created a growing mismatch between a) the narrative myth of the compact city legitimizing the government’s strategy, and b) the increasing urban sprawl generated by this strategy in Geneva’s suburban belt, especially in neighboring France.
35Nonetheless, Geneva cantonal authorities persisted with the compact city myth as illustrated by the next cantonal masterplan adopted in 1989. In terms of discourse and strategy, this masterplan represents a straight continuation of the previous one. However, as compared to the 1975 masterplan, two things had evolved in contradictory ways. On the one hand, Geneva’s economy was booming again. Throughout the 1980s, more than 30,000 new jobs (+17%) were created in the canton, one third of them occupied by cross-border workers. Thus, the economic downturn which strongly influenced the 1975 masterplan was now history. On the other hand, the 1989 masterplan was the first one that had to comply with the Federal Spatial Planning Act (FSPA) introduced in 1979. This new legislation aimed to reinforce the protection of agricultural areas and natural landscapes. It led to the establishment of a minimal agricultural area that each canton was strictly required to preserve. In Geneva, this quota, which remains in force nowadays, represents no less than 30% of the cantonal territory (Swiss Confederation 1992).
36Within a canton benefiting from steady growth, these federal requirements are therefore relatively constraining. Nevertheless, the Genevan authorities managed to turn them into opportunities by cherry-picking. Overall, they argued that, thanks to the pioneering role that Geneva had played in terms of land-use planning and land parsimony, the FSPA did not call for substantial change of the existing cantonal legislation (DAEL 2003: 154). Yet, cantonal authorities relied heavily on new federal legislation to justify their conservative approach to urban development and strengthen the compact city narrative. Indeed, the 1989 masterplan remained anchored within a binary vision of the urban-rural relationship, perceiving environmental issues through the prism of protection and leisure. Geneva countryside was idealized for being ‘the lungs of the city’, i.e. a place of respite allowing citizens to escape the city (DTP 1986: 27). The 1989 masterplan thus required Geneva’s unique landscapes, natural areas, and built heritage to be protected, and its agricultural belt extended. In contrast, despite the growth rate at the time, existing building zones were considered sufficient to accommodate cantonal urban growth until 2000 (DTP 1989).
- 1 On the deliberate character of this externalization strategy, see also Lambelet and Languillon-Auss (...)
37Finally, the 1989 masterplan included several inconsistencies regarding the cross-border dynamic of Geneva’s growth which was already a reality at that time. On the one hand, it stressed that, throughout the 1970s, population growth had been weak in Geneva (+5%), but very significant in its French suburban belt (+62%). In the same vein, it recognized that cross-border traffic flows had increased significantly and that discussions should be engaged with neighboring France to tackle this issue. However, despite recognizing these territorial interdependencies, the 1989 masterplan stopped at the cantonal boundary, reinforced the protection of the Geneva countryside and promoted a qualitative rather than a quantitative growth model for the canton. In our view, Genevan authorities have thus deliberately decided to perpetuate the externalization of Geneva’s urban growth into neighboring France, while obscuring this matter of fact by developing and extending the narrative of the compact city-state1.
38This second phase began in the early 1990s and was initiated by an external event. In December 1992, Swiss voters rejected Switzerland’s adhesion to the European Economic Area (EAA), thereby abruptly stopping Switzerland’s European integration process. This decision took the Genevan authorities by surprise and made them aware that perpetuating the compact city narrative had now become very risky. Indeed, they feared that the French-Swiss border could become a hard border and that relying extensively on cross-border workers would become excessively costly and complex. Therefore, together with their counterparts from the two French neighboring departments (Ain and Haute-Savoie) and the Nyon region (located in the neighboring Swiss canton of Vaud), the Genevan authorities drafted a transboundary planning charter which was jointly signed by the three territorial entities in 1996.
39Through this charter, the Genevan authorities made a U-turn in their planning strategy and its associated narrative as compared to the 1975 and 1989 masterplans. Indeed, the charter established the very first masterplan of the cross-border living area and pursued two objectives. First, it aimed to strengthen the position of the Greater Geneva area on the international stage, especially within Europe. Second, it aimed to better regulate the disorderly character of Geneva’s metropolization process (Jouve 1996). To achieve these objectives, the local authorities of the three territorial entities agreed that cross-border cooperation should be strengthened to ‘rebalance metropolitan development’ around various secondary poles. It is worth noting that most of these secondary poles were in France, while the suburban cities of Canton Geneva are barely represented on the various charter’s maps (see also Figure 2 below from the 2007 charter for a similar illustration).
40In other words, it was implied that neighboring French municipalities would host most of Geneva’s urban growth in the upcoming decades because land availability is much higher in neighboring France. Given the economic benefits induced by this metropolitan growth-machine (see Molotch 1976), most French municipalities were delighted to participate. Moreover, since the 1996 charter also aimed to protect sufficient agriculture areas and several natural sites, local authorities on both sides of the border did not consider the urban sprawl generated by this development model to be a salient environmental issue. The charter’s leitmotiv was rather that by ‘deconcentrating’ urban development within various well-connected sub-poles, Geneva’s growth would benefit everyone (CRFG 1996).
41In this context, the compact city narrative had completely lost its meaning. Hence, it was replaced by an antithetical planning narrative promoting the ‘differential urbanization’ and the ‘multipolar organization’ of the metropolitan area. This strategy of ‘differential urbanization’ – sometimes also called ‘differential densification’ – aimed to preserve ancient neighborhoods and green spaces surrounding Geneva’s urban core, while localizing future development projects into suburban areas of Canton Geneva and neighboring France. This new narrative promoting a ‘multipolar agglomeration’ drew on the imaginary of the informational city and its network society which was prevalent at that time (see Castells 1989; 1996). The development of an efficient public transportation network is thus presented as the backbone of a harmonious and rebalanced metropolitan development. Among the ten main projects included in the 1996 charter, seven were directly related to the creation of new transport infrastructure (CRFG 1996). However, three decades later, most of these projects have either substantially increased the functional specialization of space within the Greater Geneva area or have simply remained on paper.
I believe the 2001 MasterPlan, through the concept of cantonal planning, was truly a shift in orientation supported by a narrative. This concept indeed embodies a clear vision for the canton’s future, which was absent in the previous plan which focused on routine management. […] Then, at the level of the first Agglomeration project and the scenarios put forward for discussion, there was really a forward-looking narrative for this agglomeration that was very effectively conveyed.
Former urban planner of the Department of Territory of the Canton of Geneva Interviewed in October 2024 [Our translation].
42For the Genevan authorities, adopting this new planning narrative articulated around ‘multipolarity’ and ‘differential urbanization’ marked a clear break from the compact city narrative of the post-war period. It was based on the emplotment of rescaling and reframing of urbanization processes. However, the Genevan authorities did not produce this new narrative all on their own; they rather borrowed it from the federal authorities before transforming it for their own purposes. Indeed, throughout the 1960s and 1970s, fierce debates took place in Switzerland about the overarching planning competencies that should be transferred from the 26 Swiss cantons to federal authorities (Nahrath 2003). To ease tensions, federal authorities constructed an oxymoronic planning narrative emphasizing the necessity to further develop Switzerland following the principle of a ‘decentralized concentration’. Its underlying planning strategy aimed to concentrate urbanization within small- and medium-sized cities, while restricting urban sprawl around larger cities. The aim was to avoid the emergence of big metropolises which would become disproportionately influential within the Swiss federalist structure (Winkler 1967).
43This federal version of the multipolar development narrative thus reflects a Swiss territorial compromise which benefited from broad popular support until the 1990s (Salomon Cavin 2004). Drawing on this federal model, the Genevan authorities were convinced that, by adopting a similar narrative at the scale of the cross-border agglomeration, they would be able to generate a similar long-lasting territorial compromise with neighboring French municipalities.
44This conviction contributed to the predominance of the multipolar agglomeration narrative throughout the late 1990s and the 2000s. The first milestone of this consolidation process was the updated cantonal masterplan accepted by the Geneva Parliament in 2001, the first ever legally binding planning document produced by the Genevan authorities that included neighboring France. The 2001 masterplan was also the first planning document to explicitly state that pursuing sustainable development in the canton requires a cross-border planning framework reflecting on the territorial interdependencies between Geneva and its French suburban belt (Lin 2001). As a result, similar to the 1996 charter, the summary map of the 2001 masterplan identified the French cities of Annemasse, St-Julien, Ferney and St-Genis as the main suburban development poles of the canton, whereas most suburban cities located within the canton are not mentioned because planners considered that they were already fully integrated within Geneva’s metropolitan dynamic (DAEL 2003: 171).
45However, the sustainable development approach of the 2001 masterplan did not entail strict regulation of urban sprawl. On the contrary, promoting the multipolar and transboundary nature of the agglomeration allowed the Genevan authorities to legitimize the urbanization of important agricultural areas as long as they were located along transportation corridors. Moreover, the Genevan authorities adopted a more asymmetrical conception of ‘differentiated urbanization’ than their federal counterparts. Indeed, although urbanizing agricultural plots located next to existing building zones was a key priority within a preliminary version of the masterplan presented in 1997, most of the agricultural areas located in the canton remained preserved within the final masterplan adopted in 2001 due to opposition by the Green Party and the cantonal agricultural chamber. The protectionist component of the compact city narrative was therefore reinforced by the switch to the ‘multipolar agglomeration’ narrative.
46Besides the updated masterplan, 2001 also marked the introduction of the Swiss Confederation’s federal policy for agglomerations. Concretely, every four to five years, this new policy distributes hundreds of millions of federal funding to metropolitan infrastructure projects, mostly related to public transportation. Nonetheless, since this policy specifically targets urban areas, it has contributed to progressively undermining the consensual ‘decentralized concentration’ narrative that previously dominated Swiss planning for three decades (Felder et al. 2024: 263).
47In the case of the Greater Geneva area, the federal policy for agglomerations has significantly increased cross-border cooperation and led to the establishment of a single cross-border governance structure (De Buren 2007 ; Quincerot and Tranda-Pittion 2010). Within this framework, the Genevan authorities and their counterparts of the Nyon Region and neighboring France repeatedly insisted within the 2007 update of the transboundary charter that they shared a common vision and commitment for the future of the Greater Geneva area. The leitmotiv of this charter was to build a ‘compact, multipolar, and green’ agglomeration, three terms that have continued to be predominant within cross-border planning documents up until the present, albeit in a different order.
48The compact city narrative thus entered the metropolitan stage. However, it now served mainly as a complement to the ‘multipolar agglomeration narrative’ which remained the dominant cross-border planning strategy. In this vein, the 2007 agglomeration project stressed several times that the multipolar agglomeration should be ‘efficient’, i.e. structured along major public transportation axes and composed of a variety of ‘hierarchized centralities’. The highly connected network city imaginary which was already present in the 1996 charter was thus strengthened. Furthermore, the conversion of agricultural areas to new neighborhoods was still encouraged if they were a) easily accessible by public transit, and b) planned well in advance. Urban sprawl is thus conceived as an issue only if it relates to an uncontrolled and diffuse urbanization of agricultural areas (CRFG 2007:9).
49Finally, the 2007 charter and its related development scheme were also the first planning documents aiming to produce more comprehensive storytelling for a general audience by plotting the cross-border planning strategy and explaining it graphically and metaphorically. The best illustration of this emerging trend is the summary map located on the front page of the development scheme, which draws an analogy between a network of blood vessels and the interdependency of the multiple development poles of the Greater Geneva area (see Figure 2 below).
50On this summary map, downtown Geneva is drawn as a red heart, an appealing graphical representation which contrasts with the rather technical nature of the document and holds a double meaning. At first sight, the key message seems to be that Geneva loves its suburban cities, so that strengthening cross-border cooperation will necessarily lead to mutual territorial interdependence benefiting everyone. However, representing Geneva as the single red heart of the metropolitan area also sends the signal that, despite the multipolar agglomeration narrative, Park and Burgess’s (1925) concentric zone model still prevails. In other words, jobs will continue to be concentrated in the canton of Geneva, while new housing will be predominantly constructed in neighboring France. In sum, this graphical representation reveals the ambivalence and the fragility of the multipolar agglomeration narrative and foreshadows its future transformation.
Figure 2 – The blood vessel network metaphor: a highly connected agglomeration with a strong metropolitan heart.
Credits: M. Barthassat and Metron. Source of the picture: Tranda-Pittion et al. (2009 :10).
51The transformation of the multipolarity planning narrative started in the early 2010s as a reaction to two types of pressure exerted on the Genevan authorities. The first came from their counterparts in neighboring France; the second from the Swiss federal authorities. Within this third stage, the Genevan authorities also fully implemented the narrative turn by creating a complete narrative apparatus justifying their planning strategies. Finally, the compact city narrative has increasingly challenged the narrative of the multipolar agglomeration but without completely replacing it.
52The transformation of the multipolarity planning narrative started in the early 2010s as a reaction to two types of pressure exercised over the Genevan authorities. First, neighboring French municipalities transferred overarching planning competencies to an intermunicipal structure which would serve as the main interlocutor for negotiating with the Canton of Geneva. Thanks to this newly unified voice of French municipalities, the Genevan authorities had to recognize that their promise of constructing a multipolar agglomeration had, in practice, increased cross-border growth disparities within the Greater Geneva area. Therefore, the 2012 update of the cross-border agglomeration project placed much more emphasis on the necessity to rebalance metropolitan development than its 2007 predecessor. Beyond being ‘multipolar, compact and green’, Great Geneva should now also strengthen territorial solidarity.
53This new metropolitan narrative has been articulated around three forms of solidarity: a) de facto solidarity, induced by territorial interdependence; b) human solidarity, generated through cross-border public services – mostly related to transportation – benefiting the overall population of Greater Geneva; and finally c) chosen solidarity, relating to the various political, economic and territorial equalization mechanisms that the three territorial entities – the Canton of Geneva, neighboring France and the Nyon region – are committed to developing or perpetuating in order to ‘overcome parochialism’ (CRFG 2012: 12) and cultivate a ‘truly transboundary solidarity’ (Ibid.: 30)
54The crux of this territorial solidarity matter relates to rebalancing the employment-to-population ratio of the agglomeration by providing more jobs in neighboring France while constructing more housing in Geneva. Therefore, the Genevan authorities promised to build 50,000 housing units by 2030. To fulfill this commitment, they established a list of ten priority housing projects located on the fringes of the agricultural belt of the canton. These ten priority projects, whose magnitude is unprecedented since the modernist interlude of the 1950s–1960s, constitute the backbone of the new cantonal masterplan accepted by the cantonal Parliament in autumn 2013 (Leutenegger 2011).
55To garner support and legitimacy for their ambitious densification strategy, the Genevan authorities also created a complete narrative apparatus which aimed to explain the 2013 masterplan to the average Genevan citizen. In addition to the standard planning documents which make up a cantonal masterplan, they also published, for the very first time, an accompanying brochure entitled Genève, envie, i.e. ‘Geneva, desire’ [our translation]. This brochure intended to open the field of possibilities, thereby facilitating the reappropriation of the planning vision by ordinary citizens. It evokes several aspirations, but in a purposely vague and abstract way (see Buhler 2021): the desire for air, for space, for freedom, for city life, for community building; the desire to create, to live. This framework narrative is then hybridized and disseminated through multiple plotting mechanisms ranging from political anecdotes and artistic interventions to the creation of a one-week event named Explore, which is specifically dedicated to the exploration of the city and its possible futures (e.g. Matthey 2014; Maeder 2022).
56However, behind this hybridization, the take-home message remains crystal clear. To guarantee a harmonious development of the canton and a high quality of life for its citizens, Geneva needs to be transformed and highly densified within existing building areas. Those who systematically question or oppose this transformation are selfish privileged citizens adopting NIMBY attitudes. Since then, cantonal authorities have consistently maintained this new version of the compact city narrative, as the following analysis of Marie’s tale nicely illustrates (see next sub-section). Finally, it is worth noting that the compact city narrative of the 2010s presented the compact city as an obligation imposed by external constraints, while its counterpart from the 1975 and 1989 masterplans presented it as an informed and clever choice made by Genevan authorities.
Marie Is Back In Town: A Tale of Urban Sprawl and Urban Sustainability
In 2022, Geneva’s Department of Territorial Development produced a 2D animated video featuring a Geneva resident, a fictional character named Marie2. The subtitle gives the narrative setup away: ‘Through Marie’s story, discover the challenges of urban planning’. Through the story we follow Marie on her quest to find a new home within the canton. The narrative unfolds in the style of a ‘draw my life’ video, a format that gained popularity on YouTube in the 2010s. The story is first and foremost biographical. While her mother is from Fribourg and her father is Italian, Marie sees herself a ‘true Genevan’ because she grew up in Meyrin (one of Geneva’s suburban cites created in the 1960s), in a residential building next to a large public park.
Marie’s reflections then shift to a larger scale. When she decided to have children, she opted for a single-family home that she found in neighboring France, where land prices are more affordable. Almost breaking the fourth wall, Marie explains that she and her partner wanted to balance urban living, with its services and job opportunities, while benefiting from the tranquility and the proximity of nature in the peri-urban (neo)rural area. The story suddenly deepens on an explanatory tone: Marie was not the only one to make this choice, which led to many cross-border mobility issues between residential France and Geneva’s workplaces. The vocabulary here becomes planning-focused: numbers and maps illustrate the 120,000 daily commuters in 2022. Marie describes this residential development and the mobility issues as ‘urban sprawl’. A deer, disturbed by cars, punctuates this initial narrative phase as Marie notes that the situation ‘isn’t very ecological’.
The story then transitions as Marie says that ‘times are changing’. The 2014 revision of the FSPA introduces the principle of ‘inwards densification’ and the compact city. This principle aligns with sustainable consumption, short supply chains, and the preservation of farmland, while Marie explains the importance of consuming local products. As the music becomes more uplifting, and we see new building construction, Marie is convinced to return to Geneva. She and her family then join a housing cooperative participating in the city’s renewal, allowing her to secure a ‘reasonable’ rent while contributing to the design of the future neighborhood project. Everything seems ideal within this new, greener and better-than-ever neighborhood. Indeed, the governance of the housing cooperative is participatory, parking spaces are reduced, trees and green spaces are everywhere. Moreover, "architectural monotony" is avoided through the preservation of a heritage building and the creation of a park as well as urban gardens. In sum, the fifteen-minute sustainable city has come to life. The video concludes with the idea of "reinventing" the city: "The Geneva of tomorrow won’t be the same as the Geneva of yesterday, but it will always be Geneva’.
A place for everyone means building a home for our children. […] This presupposes that we restore the desire to build, by strongly encouraging municipalities, by simplifying our regulations and by restoring the freedom of our architects. (…) A place for everyone also means protecting our territory. To enable our farmers to feed us and to protect our historical heritage and our natural sites, buildable land must be densely developed, as our ancestors did so well in their time.
François Longchamp, President of the cantonal government. Inaugural speech of the 2013-18 legislative term, Dec. 10, 2013. [Our translation].
57As is often the case in the history of Geneva’s cantonal planning, an external element led to a change of planning narrative. In this case, the return of the compact city also came from the revision of the federal spatial planning law (Swiss Confederation 2014), which was then adopted by the Canton of Geneva one year later, in 2015. This revision, approved through a federal vote, endorsed the principle of ‘inward densification’ and the reduction of building zones. Since then, cantons are required to adapt their legislation and their masterplans, reducing the footprint of future building zones and preserving agricultural land. Therefore, Geneva had to revise its relatively new cantonal masterplan, as it still included projections for expansion into agricultural zones.
58Updating the cantonal masterplan sparked heated debates between the Confederation and the Canton, the latter arguing (supported by many political forces) that Geneva had already made significant efforts over the years in land-use parsimony and agricultural land preservation. Geneva also insisted that its quota of minimal agricultural area had to be adapted to reflect the canton’s territorial reality: constrained, already urbanized while compact, and situated in a cross-border context.
59As a result, the Genevan authorities reactivated, during and after the masterplan’s update, the narrative of a compact city surrounded by a, relatively preserved, agricultural belt. In the 2017 updated version of the masterplan, several expansion projects were abandoned or delayed indefinitely. In parallel, the Genevan authorities increased density rates for key projects which were already underway. This substantial densification of ongoing projects sparked significant opposition from interest groups, local residents, and the municipalities concerned.
60Meanwhile, the justification for increased densification of ongoing projects and the abandonment of future agricultural expansions was narratively framed as a choice rather than a constraint. Thus, the myth of the compact city and its agricultural belt reemerged, contributing to a narrative continuum. The narrative in planning of the 2013 first draft of the cantonal masterplan was already centered on the compact city, but this time it drew on a narrative for planning that was crafted by previous masterplans, rooted in the idea of the continuous and ready-made, exemplar, compact city. Yet, this time the story was accompanied by the presentation of a sustainable city: eco-neighborhoods, cooperatives, citizen participation, and a concern for the canton's resources, such as the great landscape estates.
61Although it essentially follows the continuity of the green metropolitan narrative, the most recent developments of Geneva’s urban planning (early 2020s) are characterized by two distinctive elements. On the one hand, the introduction of themes related to ecological transition and climate change; on the other hand, new planning efforts that take the reality of the agglomeration as a starting point.
62For the purposes of this article, we primarily worked on the documents and narrative frameworks surrounding the 2050 Transboundary Territorial Vision (VTT), a planning document intended to serve as a framework for all urban planning and agglomeration documents. We also conducted several interviews regarding the development of the vision and analyzed its dissemination during dedicated events. The document is intended to be both a political and technical text, representing the combined efforts of several cantonal departments, metropolitan partners, and participatory workshops. Moreover, it constitutes a strong act of narration which attributes a changing function to the narrative surrounding the VTT. Sometimes it embodies a first-degree narrative while, at other times, it becomes a second-degree narrative.
63With the VTT, Greater Geneva is considered a given in terms of boundaries, as the objective is to achieve a shared vision agreed upon by the partners. Regarding the orientation of spatial planning, the vision emphasizes, on one hand, the primacy of non-urbanized land, preventing any further expansion into agricultural areas or spaces deemed of high biodiversity value. On the other hand, the intention to achieve territorial rebalancing involves strengthening mobility networks between underserved localities and across a multi-level typology, ranging from urban centers to hamlets. A major shift in the discourse of the VTT is the equal emphasis placed on the ‘living environment’ and human activity. In this way, the compact city narrative is reactivated, but a new project narrative emphasizing ecological transition and the preservation of the living soil meshes with the continuity narrative of the compact city.
64As cartographic evidence of this narrative shift, the maps of the VTT appear to leave no blank spaces: everything on these maps is covered, and overlaps emerge as the vision seeks to weave challenges together. This graphical representation aims to reconcile biodiversity concerns, mixed-use development, soil unsealing, and, most importantly, the accommodation of demographic growth. In line with the principle of densification, urban growth should occur exclusively within existing built-up areas, prioritizing zones that are currently sparsely developed, such as city suburbs and areas undergoing urban renewal. However, a key issue with the VTT is the lack of prioritization or interest weighting for zones designated for priority urbanization. The general principle dictates that the 400,000 new inhabitants expected by 2050 will be accommodated within the existing buildable zones, but localizing strategies and detailed trade-offs remain undecided and unclear (see Buhler 2021). Yet, such an approach facilitates a degree of consensus with French territories. These areas have faced the negative externalities of accommodating Geneva's growth, such as land consumption, or the obligation to invest in public infrastructure and mobility systems. Finally, it is worth noting that with the imminent prospect of national legislation aiming for no net land take (Zéro Artificialisation Nette or ZAN), French municipalities were able to negotiate reduced growth projections within their territories to endorse the acceptance of the VTT.
65In the 124-page document of the 2050 Territorial Vision, the narrative presents a relatively diffuse and disembodied point of view: it deals with ‘society,’ ‘planetary boundaries’, and the ‘planetary system,’ before descending either to the level of the agglomeration or to the scale of prototypal and archetypal projects. The new and major emplotment process is the presence of a dual perspective that responds to itself: one of urgency and limits (‘emergency measures’, ‘ceiling’, ‘tomorrow is today’) and one of resilience (‘reconnexion’, ‘regeneration’, ‘preservation’).
- 3 Although bearing the same designation, the term we use here differs significantly from the concept (...)
66From the perspective of ecological transition, the first thematic axis of the VTT is ‘the primacy of the living foundation’. This expression can be seen as an ecological or landscape infrastructure, as a parallel to the ‘social foundation’ of the economic model of the sustainability doughnut (Raworth 2017). The ‘living’ is a term denoting all living organisms and ecosystems which originates in the natural and engineering sciences3, and has notably been diffused through international organizations. Planning for the living implies to reconsider how to incorporate ecosystem services and biodiversity within land-use and planning policies (e.g. Stengers 2009; Delabarre, 2026 – forthcoming). The summary map of this first axis of the VTT (see Figure 3 below) nicely illustrates the fuzziness generated by this emplotment process. The whole metropolitan territory is represented with green nuances, and it becomes very hazardous to distinguish urbanized from natural spaces.
Figure 3 – ‘The primacy of the living foundation’: Map of the 1st axis of the VTT.
Source: Transboundary Territorial Vision (GLCT et al. 2024: 14).
67As mentioned earlier, the VTT develops a quite disembodied discourse rather than a straightforward narrative. In some respects, the narrative is less present and focused than in the documents of the cantonal masterplan. According to the VTT’s definition, the living foundation refers to ‘all biodiversity, natural biotic resources (fauna, flora), abiotic resources (air, soil, water, energy) and landscapes of Greater Geneva, as well as all associated ecological processes and cycles. Ecological infrastructure, the expanded hydrographic network, and ecosystem services are integral components of the living foundation’ (GLCT et al. 2024: 38). Simply put, it is a broad and extensive definition of biodiversity which refers to a base – or a ceiling – presented as necessary for biodiversity preservation and ecological continuity. Within the document, the term ‘living,’ due to its popularity as well as its plasticity, is sometimes associated with ‘all natural and semi-natural environments in which living species evolve’, or with resources or ecosystem services. Thus, within the narrative of the VTT documents themselves, the ‘living’ does not lend its voice to new characters; the scale of perspective remains that of ecosystems. Hence, the living foundation appears as a continuity narrative of the sustainable development theme.
68However, a new emplotment mechanism of the VTT is directly linked to the notion of transition, a paradigm that encompasses other planning issues and integrates the limits of the Earth system. It embraces planetary boundaries, climatic events, and territorial risks that form the beginning of the new storyline. This uncharted reality implies a change in direction in planning and a desire to break with previous conceptions. The story is told from a panoptic-systemic view: the reader is led to see the interrelations that constitute the territory, but particular characters and viewpoints are overlooked in favor of an overall systemic vision. The perspective aims to be broad, insofar as the objectives of the transition range from carbon neutrality in the Greater Geneva region to ‘contributing to improving the well-being of the world’s population’ (GLCT et al. 2024: 99).
69The VTT is thus also carried by a project narrative in which new elements are intended a) to change our perception of Geneva’s metropolitan territory and b) to influence the course of political events. Such a transition is introduced into the narrative as a new basis that modify the framework of the story. This new narrative, based on the idea of a boundary – albeit very vaguely defined – offended some members of the cantonal Parliament and was poorly received by economic circles during the political debates surrounding the validation of the VTT. From an enunciative perspective, the way in which the story of transition is conveyed therefore seems to be diluted and remote, resulting in challenges to engagement into the narrative. As a planner said during a conference on new imaginaries for the ecological transition: ‘It still remains to find what transition narratives exactly are’ [October 2024; Our translation]. In any case, the territory-as-living-being is not (yet) a protagonist in the story.
70Overall, these tendencies highlight that the use of new narratives of the living and transition in urban planning caught in a tension between more or less technical discourses – technical grammar of risk and climate change – and the difficulty of embodying a strong, unequivocal and prospective narrative. The result becomes a series of narrative diffractions: in narratology, this is a metaphorical term used to describe the way in which meaning, voice, or position is dispersed. The multiplication of storytelling devices carrying the diffusion of the VTT, which often precede urban planning plans, is also a sign of an inability to address recurring issues such as territorial densification and housing availability. Finally, it should be noted that the guiding thread of densification almost disappears from the VTT narrative when looking closely at the document’s semantic and its various storytellers. The general idea remains since the word ‘densification’ appears 24 times in the VTT document, but it is no longer a core narrative thread. It is now rather presented as a general legal constraint, which is then used by cantonal authorities to legitimize this territorial transformation through other terms with a much more positive connotation like regeneration, networking, or circularity. The next cantonal masterplan (2050) will probably have to take a stance on this aspect, and the compact city will likely then be reactivated as a narrative.
Table 1 – Evolution of narrative temporality, reference scale and sustainability dimension across the three phases under study [Own elaboration].
|
Phase 1:
Compact city myth
(1970s – mid-1990s)
|
Phase 2:
Multipolar agglomeration narrative (mid-1990s-late 2000s)
|
Phase 3:
Greening of the metropolitan narrative
(since the 2010s)
|
|
Narrative temporality(ies)
|
Mainly continuity narrative through the compact city myth and protection of arable lands
|
Mainly project narratives: differentiated urbanization, ongoing multipolar agglomeration and beginning of sustainable development
|
Clear overlap of project narratives (green and sustainability, later ecological transition) and continuity narratives (compact city, multipolar agglomeration under pressure)
|
|
Reference scale(s)
|
Geneva’s cantonal borders
|
Agglomeration scale
|
Agglomeration scale & planetary boundaries
|
|
Sustainability dimension
|
Arable lands (food autonomy)
|
Sustainable development
|
Sustainable development & ecological transition
|
71Through investigating five decades (1970s–2020s) of metropolitan master planning in the Greater Geneva area, this article sought to highlight how state-led planning projects are subject to narrative transformations within a context of continuous projection toward future plans. These narrative shifts serve as mechanisms to make new plans coherent and persuasive (project narratives), but they mostly emerge in reaction to external events on which planning authorities have little control like political changes (e.g., the 1992 referendum rejecting integration into the European Economic Area, pressure from French municipalities in the early 2000s, or the enactment of the Swiss Spatial Planning Act), emerging public concerns (e.g., climate change), or territorial challenges (e.g., urban sprawl, mobility congestion). As demonstrated in this article, these shifts function to integrate new elements into the metropolitan narrative.
72At the same time, the use of elements ensuring a form of narrative continuity (continuity narratives) has been observed. For instance, the concept of the compact city originates from a historically embedded imaginary of Geneva. This image was temporarily deactivated before being reactivated under the banner of sustainable urbanism. Similarly, the concept of the polycentric metropolitan area evolved into a consolidated narrative, facilitating the building of consensus for master planning initiatives from the early 2000s onward, materializing progressively alongside the political consolidation of Greater Geneva. Overall, our analysis has thus shown that the persuasive role of planning narratives (see Throgmorton 1992; Sandercock 2003; Westin 2022) continues to be central, but that planning authorities now tend to develop a more sophisticated narrative apparatus which, beyond persuasion, also aims to fulfill other functions. For instance, within Geneva’s hyperpluralistic regime, involving a high number of stakeholders defending contradictory views (see Lambelet 2019: chap. 5), planning narratives also serve to embrace controversy and foster consensual urban projects (see Mandelbaum 1991). Similarly, the narrative anchored within the 2050 Transboundary Territorial Vision (VTT) represents an attempt to gain democratic legitimacy for a joint cross-border planning process, despite the absence of a common institutional framework governing Great Geneva (see Healey 1992).
73In this vein, our analysis has shown that planning narratives are simultaneously the outcomes of broader political discourses and stories with which planners and political authorities must contend. As active narrators, both stakeholders increasingly employ narrative as a resource, adapting it based on two types of variation: temporal and scalar variations. In line with previous studies (e.g. Levy 2020; Buhler 2021), we have thus observed that planning authorities frequently aim to turn narratives into resources by introducing more fuzziness on both dimensions. This was notably the case within the various agglomeration charters as well as, in a sort of climax, within the recently adopted VTT.
74We therefore encourage future studies to pay more attention to this simultaneous hybridity of planning narratives regarding their temporality and their spatiality. We also want to stress that both dimensions remain politically and socially constructed by the multiple interactions taking place between emitters and receivers of planning narratives. In this article, we acknowledge that we have focused solely on emitters and that further research is needed to analyze the concrete effects of this hybridization process on the targeted audiences receiving these narratives. However, despite this limitation, we argue that analyzing how planning authorities can hybridize the spatiality and the temporality of their planning narratives in a synchronous way constitutes an important complement to Ameel’s (2021) typology of planning narratives and strengthens its analytical potential.