Literature beyond planning
theory
Inhoudsopgave
Sept 8 – Introduction: foundations of planning theory.................................3
• Buitelaar, E. (2026). Making sense of The Just City. Defining, choosing,
and applying different conceptions of urban justice. Planning Theory,
14730952261415602................................................................................3
• Rydin, Y. (2021). Introduction: Theory and Planning Research. In Theory
in Planning Research (pp. 1-17). Singapore: Springer Singapore..............9
Sept 15 – Knowledge in planning theory....................................................13
• Hall, P. (2020). “The City of Theory”: from Cities of Tomorrow: An
Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth
Century, 4th edn (2014). In The City Reader (pp. 440-453). Routledge..13
• Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning
theory. Planning theory, 6(1), 52-68.......................................................20
Sept 17 Explaining social and spatial order: structure, agency and change
...................................................................................................................25
• Hayek F.A. (1944). Planning and democracy. In Hillier J and Healy P
(Eds.) (2008) Critical essays in planning theory. Vol. 1, Foundations of the
planning enterprise. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp.42-53................................25
• Marx K. (1844) Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844:
Estranged Labor. The Marxists Archive, online.......................................30
Cozzolino, S. (2020). The (anti) adaptive neighbourhoods. Embracing
complexity and distribution of design control in the ordinary built
environment. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City
Science, 47(2), 203-219..........................................................................34
Sept 22– High modernism and the debate on rational-comprehensive
planning.....................................................................................................40
Rydin, Y. (2021). Governmental Models: The Hope of Rational Public
Administration. In Theory in Planning Research (pp. 19-40). Singapore:
Springer Singapore.................................................................................40
Scott, J. C. (2020). The high-modernist city: an experiment and a critique.
In Seeing Like a State (pp. 103-146). Yale University Press....................46
Davoudi, S. (2006). Evidence-based planning: rhetoric and reality. DisP-
the planning review, 42(165), 14-2.........................................................50
,Sept 24 Rational choice and self-interest...................................................58
• Needham, B. (2016). Interests and rights in property, and their place in
land-use planning: a theoretical investigation. In Planning By Law and
Property Rights Reconsidered (pp. 23 36). Routledge.............................58
• Hindmoor, A. (2006). Chapter 5: Mancur Olson and The logic of
collective action. In Rational Choice. Basingstoke: Palgrave...................62
Taylor, J. (2016). Urban Growth, Boundaries and Betterment: Rent-
seeking by Landowners on Melbourne’s. Expanding Urban Fringe. Growth
and Change 47(2): 259–275...................................................................69
Sept 29 Neo-institutionalism......................................................................77
Dembski, S., & Salet, W. (2010). The transformative potential of
institutions: How symbolic markers can institute new social meaning in
changing cities. Environment and planning A, 42(3), 611-625...............77
Moroni, S. (2010). An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions and a Dynamic
Approach to Reform. Planning Theory 9(4): 275–97...............................84
Sorensen, A. (2024). Urban intensification and land value capture in
Toronto: Conjunctural analysis, critical junctures, and developmental
pathways in urban planning. Environment and Planning A: Economy and
Space, 56(6), 1803-1819........................................................................93
,Sept 8 – Introduction: foundations of
planning theory
• Buitelaar, E. (2026). Making sense of The Just City. Defining, choosing,
and applying different conceptions of urban justice. Planning Theory,
14730952261415602.
Introduction
Cities have many benefits, but their problems have also become more
visible. These include urban poverty, segregation, gentrification and
unaffordable housing. Because of this, there has been growing interest in
urban justice and the idea of the Just City. However, there is broad
agreement that justice is desirable, but much less agreement about what
justice actually means. The concept is often either too broad or too
narrowly defined. When justice is kept very broad, people can agree on it
easily, but important conflicts and differences remain hidden. On the other
hand, some theories define justice in one specific way and act as if this is
the only possible meaning.
Different ideas of justice can also conflict with each other. For example,
free choice can sometimes increase segregation or gentrification. This
means cities cannot always achieve all ideas of justice at the same time.
Buitelaar says planners should make these choices clear and understand
what different ideas of justice mean for policy. He calls this “justice
literacy”: understanding different ideas of justice and how they can
support or conflict with each other.
The article discusses four main conceptions of the Just City:
The Happy City
The Equal City
The Supportive City
The Free City
The main point is that creating a Just City requires choosing between
different ideas of justice and understanding how those choices lead to
different planning policies.
Vocabulary of Justice: Deconstructing the Just City
Buitelaar identifies four different ideas of urban justice, based on different
political philosophies:
, Happy City → utilitarianism: focus on overall happiness.
Equal City → egalitarianism: focus on equality.
Supportive City → sufficientarianism: focus on making sure everyone
has enough.
Free City → liberalism: focus on individual freedom and rights.
First, a city itself cannot really be “just” or “unjust.” Justice applies mainly
to the institutions and rules that shape how the city develops. For
example, housing prices or segregation can show that there may be
problems with these rules and institutions.
Second, the city is understood as the area where goods, rights and
responsibilities are distributed. Buitelaar mainly focuses on three basic
urban needs: housing, jobs and transport. He mainly looks at distributional
justice, meaning who gets what. He does not focus as much on
environmental justice, procedural justice or recognition justice.
Third, justice does not necessarily have to be achieved only by the city
government. Decisions can also be made at the neighbourhood, national
or European level. The city is the level where we are concerned about
justice, but another level may be responsible for achieving it.
The article mainly deals with allocative justice, which asks “who gets
what?” This is different from background justice, which concerns the basic
rules and structures of society.
Finally, Buitelaar says that each idea of justice can be broken down into
five “materials of justice”:
Values → what people should have or have access to, such as
affordable housing or green space.
Principles → how these values should be distributed, for example
equally or with priority for disadvantaged people.
Scope → who the principle applies to, such as current residents,
future generations or even non-human beings.
Grounds → the reasons why a certain principle should be used.
Basis → the main underlying idea of justice, such as collective
welfare or individual rights.
theory
Inhoudsopgave
Sept 8 – Introduction: foundations of planning theory.................................3
• Buitelaar, E. (2026). Making sense of The Just City. Defining, choosing,
and applying different conceptions of urban justice. Planning Theory,
14730952261415602................................................................................3
• Rydin, Y. (2021). Introduction: Theory and Planning Research. In Theory
in Planning Research (pp. 1-17). Singapore: Springer Singapore..............9
Sept 15 – Knowledge in planning theory....................................................13
• Hall, P. (2020). “The City of Theory”: from Cities of Tomorrow: An
Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth
Century, 4th edn (2014). In The City Reader (pp. 440-453). Routledge..13
• Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning
theory. Planning theory, 6(1), 52-68.......................................................20
Sept 17 Explaining social and spatial order: structure, agency and change
...................................................................................................................25
• Hayek F.A. (1944). Planning and democracy. In Hillier J and Healy P
(Eds.) (2008) Critical essays in planning theory. Vol. 1, Foundations of the
planning enterprise. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp.42-53................................25
• Marx K. (1844) Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844:
Estranged Labor. The Marxists Archive, online.......................................30
Cozzolino, S. (2020). The (anti) adaptive neighbourhoods. Embracing
complexity and distribution of design control in the ordinary built
environment. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City
Science, 47(2), 203-219..........................................................................34
Sept 22– High modernism and the debate on rational-comprehensive
planning.....................................................................................................40
Rydin, Y. (2021). Governmental Models: The Hope of Rational Public
Administration. In Theory in Planning Research (pp. 19-40). Singapore:
Springer Singapore.................................................................................40
Scott, J. C. (2020). The high-modernist city: an experiment and a critique.
In Seeing Like a State (pp. 103-146). Yale University Press....................46
Davoudi, S. (2006). Evidence-based planning: rhetoric and reality. DisP-
the planning review, 42(165), 14-2.........................................................50
,Sept 24 Rational choice and self-interest...................................................58
• Needham, B. (2016). Interests and rights in property, and their place in
land-use planning: a theoretical investigation. In Planning By Law and
Property Rights Reconsidered (pp. 23 36). Routledge.............................58
• Hindmoor, A. (2006). Chapter 5: Mancur Olson and The logic of
collective action. In Rational Choice. Basingstoke: Palgrave...................62
Taylor, J. (2016). Urban Growth, Boundaries and Betterment: Rent-
seeking by Landowners on Melbourne’s. Expanding Urban Fringe. Growth
and Change 47(2): 259–275...................................................................69
Sept 29 Neo-institutionalism......................................................................77
Dembski, S., & Salet, W. (2010). The transformative potential of
institutions: How symbolic markers can institute new social meaning in
changing cities. Environment and planning A, 42(3), 611-625...............77
Moroni, S. (2010). An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions and a Dynamic
Approach to Reform. Planning Theory 9(4): 275–97...............................84
Sorensen, A. (2024). Urban intensification and land value capture in
Toronto: Conjunctural analysis, critical junctures, and developmental
pathways in urban planning. Environment and Planning A: Economy and
Space, 56(6), 1803-1819........................................................................93
,Sept 8 – Introduction: foundations of
planning theory
• Buitelaar, E. (2026). Making sense of The Just City. Defining, choosing,
and applying different conceptions of urban justice. Planning Theory,
14730952261415602.
Introduction
Cities have many benefits, but their problems have also become more
visible. These include urban poverty, segregation, gentrification and
unaffordable housing. Because of this, there has been growing interest in
urban justice and the idea of the Just City. However, there is broad
agreement that justice is desirable, but much less agreement about what
justice actually means. The concept is often either too broad or too
narrowly defined. When justice is kept very broad, people can agree on it
easily, but important conflicts and differences remain hidden. On the other
hand, some theories define justice in one specific way and act as if this is
the only possible meaning.
Different ideas of justice can also conflict with each other. For example,
free choice can sometimes increase segregation or gentrification. This
means cities cannot always achieve all ideas of justice at the same time.
Buitelaar says planners should make these choices clear and understand
what different ideas of justice mean for policy. He calls this “justice
literacy”: understanding different ideas of justice and how they can
support or conflict with each other.
The article discusses four main conceptions of the Just City:
The Happy City
The Equal City
The Supportive City
The Free City
The main point is that creating a Just City requires choosing between
different ideas of justice and understanding how those choices lead to
different planning policies.
Vocabulary of Justice: Deconstructing the Just City
Buitelaar identifies four different ideas of urban justice, based on different
political philosophies:
, Happy City → utilitarianism: focus on overall happiness.
Equal City → egalitarianism: focus on equality.
Supportive City → sufficientarianism: focus on making sure everyone
has enough.
Free City → liberalism: focus on individual freedom and rights.
First, a city itself cannot really be “just” or “unjust.” Justice applies mainly
to the institutions and rules that shape how the city develops. For
example, housing prices or segregation can show that there may be
problems with these rules and institutions.
Second, the city is understood as the area where goods, rights and
responsibilities are distributed. Buitelaar mainly focuses on three basic
urban needs: housing, jobs and transport. He mainly looks at distributional
justice, meaning who gets what. He does not focus as much on
environmental justice, procedural justice or recognition justice.
Third, justice does not necessarily have to be achieved only by the city
government. Decisions can also be made at the neighbourhood, national
or European level. The city is the level where we are concerned about
justice, but another level may be responsible for achieving it.
The article mainly deals with allocative justice, which asks “who gets
what?” This is different from background justice, which concerns the basic
rules and structures of society.
Finally, Buitelaar says that each idea of justice can be broken down into
five “materials of justice”:
Values → what people should have or have access to, such as
affordable housing or green space.
Principles → how these values should be distributed, for example
equally or with priority for disadvantaged people.
Scope → who the principle applies to, such as current residents,
future generations or even non-human beings.
Grounds → the reasons why a certain principle should be used.
Basis → the main underlying idea of justice, such as collective
welfare or individual rights.
