IN-PERSON Manchester Livable Cities

Abstract

This study presents empirical findings from on-site research at the “Londeau” (Noisy-le-Sec, France), examining the discrepancy between regulatory intentions and lived experience. Using an immersive mixed-methods approach, it combines participant observation (walking diagnoses and consultation meetings), 41 in-depth interviews, and policy and discourse analysis. The study shows how top-down urban renewal policies fail to address residents’ cognitive, emotional, and practical needs, undermining health and well-being despite claims of participatory planning. Findings reveal a marked mismatch between policy intentions and everyday realities. While professionals often frame the estate as dysfunctional, residents express strong attachment to its pre-renovation character, valuing enclosed communal spaces as sources of safety and belonging. This divergence is exacerbated by systemic complexity and superficial consultation, where resident input is frequently marginalised by bureaucratic constraints, including heritage protections privileging aesthetics over human needs. Renovation efforts, though well-intentioned, have often increased spatial disorientation and reduced accessibility—particularly for vulnerable groups—through generic design solutions that neglect neuroarchitectural principles linked to well-being. The research argues that current renewal frameworks, while ostensibly participatory, remain rooted in hierarchical planning logics in which administrative and aesthetic priorities override human-centred concerns. By foregrounding resident narratives and neuroscientific insights, it calls for a fundamental reorientation of urban policy towards genuinely inclusive, evidence-based, and human-centred design.