Summary
planning theory summary (elective course)
- Course
- Institution
summary of the slides + own notes
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
manonderop
Content preview
Planning theoryLes 1
Ppt1
Introduction:
What is Planning Theory?
‘Defining planning theory is hard: the subject is slippery, and explanations are often frustratingly tautological or
disappointingly pedestrian.’
- ‘Planning theory’ is hard to define:
o Planning: broad and general concept (role of the State, the market, civil/civic
society), it’s not a specific phenomenon
o Different planning theorists stress different aspects
▪ Object (spatial structures and processes)
• Special structures
▪ Method (decision making processes)
• How to do planning?
- Why is ‘planning theory’ hard to define?:
o Planning theorists do different things
▪ Analysis of planning practice
▪ Developping theory to change practice
o Moreover, planning practice is heterogeneous, many methods and techniques are
used
- Some attitudes and interests shared by planners:
o ‘shared interest in space and place,
o a commitment to civic community, and
o a pragmatic orientation toward professional practice
- Fainstein and DeFilippis: central question in planning theory:
‘What role can planning play in developing the good city and region within the
constraints of a capitalist political economy and varying political systems?’
o Good = veel betekenissen, vb. Healty city is ook good city maar
specifieker
o Niet alle planning theory’s hebben het tweede deel van de tekst
- Significant gap between planning theory and practice
- essay of Sanyal (2002)
‘What do planners rely upon when engaged in compromising? What theory of action can they look to for guidance?
The current literature on so called planning theory is rather thin and somewhat useless for this purpose. This became
evident to us at MIT as we assembled a group of city and regional planners two years ago and asked them which
planning theory did they use as they grappled with conflicting interests? None of the planners mentioned any
planning theory they had found useful. Instead, each had developed his/her own guidelines for action through
learning by doing on the job, as we say; and many of them had doubts about the morality – or lack of it – underlying
some of their own decisions.’ (Sanyal 2002 p.120)
, o tekst: planning theory = nutteloos
o tijdens hun job vonden ze handige manieren, hadden het niet over specifieke planning theory
o planners and practice don’t care about planning theory but need guidance to do things
Why Planning Theory?
- Planning theory: useless?
- John Friedmann (2003):
o ‘Why do planning theory?’
‘In a recent issue of this journal, Bish Sanyalargues that, based on a survey of planning practitioners some years back,
none of them had found planning theory or, indeed, any theory, useful as they ‘grappled with conflicting interests’
(Sanyal, 2002). They learned ‘by doing’, not from theories. His comment raises the question, why, if practitioners find
planning theory to be of little or indeed, of any use, we should bother with contributing to the several ongoing
discourses on theory.’
o Met oplossing komen voor iedereen
- Is ook filosofisch
‘I suspect that Professor Sanyal’s views on this matter are widely shared. Even within the academy, there is no
consensus as to what constitutes ‘planning theory’. As a result, most planners go through their education without a
clear understanding of planning theory in its multiple dimensions. There is not even, I would venture to guess, a clear
view of ‘theory’, whether the term should be reserved for predictive theories only, or whether, as in the case of
economics, a theory about what is can also be employed as a prescriptive theory, or whether it is possible for
theoretical discourse to be entirely normative, with large claims but little evidence, or whether it is simply a loose
term, as in thinking about planning.
o Difference in analytical, on the other hand theories of what should be => what is? How things workt, …
o Prescriptive, normative: how things should be done
- Planning theory:
o Predictive theory: ‘what is’ (explanation/prediction/description)
Or
o Prescriptive theory: ‘what ought to be’ (normative)
‘There is a widespread acceptance in our métier that there are significant differences between theories that are used
in planning and are specific to its several specializations (land use, transport, urban design, regional development,
environmental planning, etc.) (theory 1); and theories that address what is common to all of them, i.e. theories of
planning tout court (theory 2). In addition, I would propose a third category that I shall call theories about planning
(theory 3).
o Theories that are used in planning(1)
▪ e.g. theories borrowed from economics, sociology, ecology,…
o Theories of panning = how plannings should be done (most obvious)
▪ a theory about how planning ‘ought to be practiced’(2)
o Theories about planning = reflection what is planning, critical look at planning (van buiten af bekijken)(3)
▪ ‘theories, that based on studies, take a critical look at planning as it is actually practiced’
‘No one argues about the relevance of theories of migration or economic location as they are deployed within the sub-
discipline of regional development planning (theory 1). Neither is there much argument about the potential value of
what some have called critical planning, theories, that based on studies, take a critical look at planning as it is actually
practiced (theory 3). Such critiques may come from Marxist, political economy, or sustainability perspectives, among
others. They are general statements or theories about planning. What is at issue, then, are the so called theories of
planning (theory 2) which are said to be irrelevant to practice.’
,- 3 types
Before proceeding, I think it needs to be said that there is no planning practice without a theory about how it ought
to be practiced. That theory may or may not be named or present in consciousness, but it is there all the same. Thus,
when we argue that planning ought to be in or reflect a general or public interest, we have in mind a theory of planning.
And the same is true when we speak of comprehensive or, alternatively, of advocacy planning. It should also be clear
that all of these terms (and there are several more that could be cited) are hotly contested. Some of us might
remember Herbert Simon’s and Charles Lindblom’s arguments in the 1950s and 1960s about synoptic and
incremental planning, or Amitai Etzioni’s proposal for what he called mixed scanning. These arguments, which had a
decisive influence on thinking within the profession, understood planning to be about decision-making and more
specifically about how to make decisions more rational. They were also built on certain (unquestioned)
epistemological assumptions and, more generally, about the powers (or lack thereof) of social scientific analysis.’
o Planning = keuzes maken (rationeel)
o Machtsverschillen
- Planners always use/have (consciously and unconsciously ) concepts, models, convictions,
worldviews and assumptions.
- For example: many planners believe that they serve the public interest, or believe that
planning is rational.
- However,
o what is ‘rational’?
▪ welke types van rationaliteit?
o does the ‘public interest’ exist?
‘The prevailing model of planning as a form of rational decision making was challenged in the early 1970s in my book,
Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning (Friedmann, 1973). I argued that the model had run its course,
and that a new way of thinking about planning was needed that would emphasize the relation between knowledge
and action. In line with this new planning problematic, I proposed an epistemology of social learning, arguing more
specifically for a relation of dialogue as a basis for mutual learning between planners and client groups. These ideas
were picked up, or at least resonated with the work of others, including Donald Schoen (reflective practice), John
Forester (communicative planning), and Patsy Healey (collaborative planning). It also shifted the discourses of
planning theory away from planning as an instrument of control to one of innovation and action, which in turn, raised
questions about what values ought to guide our practice, what strategies should be adopted, and how participation by
community and/or stakeholders might be furthered.’
- Friedmann stresses his own contribution to the field
- Rejection of blueprint planning
o ‘away from planning as an instrument of control to one of innovation and action’
- Central questions of planning theory:
o ‘what values ought to guide our practice,’
o ‘what strategies should be adopted, and ‘
, o ‘how participation by community and/or stakeholders might be furthered.’
‘I have no way of telling whether planning practitioners are influenced by these still ongoing debates (theory 2), but it
does seem to me that the issues being posed are most relevant for practice across all planning specializations, even
when they are not fully resolved.
Meanwhile (and I have in mind the half century of post Second World War planning) our world has changed
dramatically, and planning needs to be brought in line with what is happening, from globalization and neoliberalist
ideologies to multiculturalism and postmodernity. One of the major contributions to this re-thinking of planning is
Leonie Sandercock’s Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities (1998). The enthusiastic reception of this
book, including by policy makers and politicians, especially in Europe, has resulted in a second, largely rewritten and
augmented edition’
- Changing world, changing challenges
o Globalisation
o Multiculturalism
o …
‘Finally, I would like to say a few words about radical or insurgent planning, a tradition of planning that is rooted in
civil society rather than the state (Friedmann, 1987; Hartman, 2002). Generally ignored by mainstream planners,
radical planning is action-oriented. It is allied with social movements for the right to housing, feminist concerns,
socially and ecologically sustainable development, bio-regionalism, gay and lesbian rights, anti-racism and others,
and is inspired by the normative theories undergirding these movements. The history of radical planning goes back to
the early industrial revolution in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, to the utopian communities of Robert Owen
and Charles Fourier, and on to the federalism of Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the anarchism of Peter Kropotkin, and the
social activism of Saul Alinsky, but equally to the rise of Marxian socialism and the international labor movement as a
political force. To deny this radical edge a place within planning theory is equivalent to saying that the issues
addressed by radical planners are of no concern to contemporary city builders, that only mainstream, state centered
planning counts. And yet, it is precisely that part of planning which is the most closely linked to practices, which is the
most passionately and politically engaged, and which deeply matters for the future of our cities and regions.’
o Planners moeten radicaal zijn
o Normatieve theorieën; zeggen hoe samenleving moet veranderen
o Niet mainstream
o Wat geeft de samenleving vorm? Waarom zou feminisme relevant zijn voor planners?
▪ Safety = een zorgtheid
▪ Omgeving vaak door mannen ontworpen, nemen dingen die ze zelf niet ervaren niet op in
ontwerp
- Remarkably, Friedmann refers to insurgent planning (anti-state?)
- ‘capitalist political economy’ (cf. definition Fainstein and DeFilippis) not accepted by all
planners
- Specific themes to be adressed by planners:
o right to housing,
o feminist concerns,
o socially and ecologically sustainable development, bio-regionalism,
o gay and lesbian rights,
o anti-racis
CONCLUSIE:
‘So, why do planning theory? My answer is because, pace Sanyal, it does matter, because it is essential to the vitality
and continued relevance of planning as a profession.’
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller manonderop. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $17.94. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
62774 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now