Introduction - The structure and debates of planning theory
Planning is complex, because of the many fundamental questions in different perspectives,
the divided field, and the unsharp boundaries
relationship between planning theory and planning practice is problematic
→ gap is too big: practitioners don’t know the philosophy of a theory
role of planning is to generate a creative tension that is critical and constructive
Fainstein: planning theory is placed at the intersection of political economy, history and
philosophy, and erasing actors and agents that struggle against planning
the rational planning model, cost-benefit analysis, came to figure out the means
(quantification)
→ criticism → new methodology invented: just negotiate (no ends, no means)
top down decision making: not focussing on power, but on the object of planning
just city: power leads to stupid planning decisions and inequality
why planning:
- duality between planning and market
- neat division between public and private worlds
- limiting creative or redistributive planning efforts
- enhancing equity: privileging the private sector reinforces unjust outcomes
planning values:
ethical questions, loyalty to public at large while working for private sector, uncertainty
(future), complicated issues such as environmental challenges
Public interest:
incremental planners vs advocate planners
incremental planners believe that complexity makes discovering public interest unrealistic
advocate planners claim that the public interest represents the interests of the privileged
problems:
- we cannot know what public interest is
- there is no such thing as unified public that can have an interest
→ planners serve public interest by negotiating multicultural, technical pluralism
communicative planning is more accepted, differentiated and criticized
→ most significant changes: understanding of power, communicative action and the
planner’s role in mediating interactions among stakeholders
planning theory evolves because of changes in planning practice, development of cities and
the rise of social movements
climate change requires traditional planning concerns with environmental protection
theory-practise time lag: task of planning is to catch up with planning practice itself
, Chapter 6 - 3 currents of city planning - Peter Marcuse
Technisist planning - deferential planning - Le Corbusier
builds on urban work of engineers, and is responsive to powerful people with authority and
resources to commision the work
→ maximizing efficiency - the planner is the professional, a technician with knowledge
- scientific: city as a machine, performing activities (or social organism) - engineer
- designer: unique vision of desirable design → more important than social and
individual characteristics of its users (has a lot in common with social reform
planning)
- contractual: planners are obedient to their employer, bringing skills and performance
→ just about clarifying what the employer desires
- process: making sure the client’s goals are pursued, pushing client to be sure about
wishes
Social reform planning
social issues, criticism of urban conditions
→ harmony, order and beauty, with social ideas and values
needed changes accomplished within framework of social, political and economic order
striving for a neat, beautiful city for everyone: environmental sustainability, public
participation and prevention of nuisance
Social justice planning → human development = main goal
planning with established bureaucratic legal structures
- strong social movements are major actors
- direct confrontation with issues of power → difference with social reform
1 ethical/cultural planning - social oriented criticism of conventional planning
→ sustainability, diversity, multi-cultural planning, development of human capabilities
critiques of conventional planning: undemocratic, unfair, inequality creating, growth focused
without regard for human consequences, unsustainable
→ but because of the many aspects, ethical- cultural planners are ignored
2 community based planning → immigration & healthcare, anti poverty and -
discrimination
3 radical/critical planning → deal with power tactically for success
confronting the functioning of social, economic and/or political system
focuses on: fair distribution of ares, giving priority to the poor and minority
examines the structure of planning process itself, and pointing out responsibilities of different
industries
4 utopian planning → ideal states, comes forward out of critical contrast
issue of power, new rules & regulations
design utopias: ideals of perfect society, little concerned with physical form
symbolic utopias: structuring of built environment, illustrating social concepts of society
physical utopias: defining forms of built environment as incorporating the desired ideal
→ focus is affecting spatial and physical relationships
(samenspel tussen de drie vormen zorgt voor spanningen)
garden cities (howard) = physical utopia, physical proposals to maintain social changes
