1
Introduction to spatial planning new summary
Week 1 Articles:
- Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J.(2016) Introduction. The structures and debates of
planning theory. In: Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J. (Eds.). (2015). Readings in
Planning Theory. John Wiley & Sons.
- Marcuse, P. (2011). The three historic currents of city planning. Chapter 6 in:
Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J. (Eds.). (2015). Readings in Planning Theory. John
Wiley & Sons
Article 1: Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J.(2016) Introduction
Goal of the article:
"This guide has two main goals: First, it aims to clearly outline what planning theory
covers and the key writings that make up its main focus. Second, it wants to deal
with the main problems that planners - both thinkers and doers - encounter."
What Is Planning Theory?
Several reasons account for the complexity of defining planning theory:
- Planning in a Broader Context: Planning isn't just about planning itself; it's
connected to bigger questions about how governments, markets, and
communities shape our society and spaces. This mix of ideas from various
fields makes it hard to define planning narrowly.
- Divisions within Planning: There's a split in how people define planning –
some see it in terms of what it does (managing spaces and relationships),
while others see it more about the decision-making process for spatial
development. These different angles create separate sets of questions and
priorities, leading to debates about which approach is more important.
- Diverse Approaches in Planning Theory: There are further divisions within
planning theory. Some study current practices, trying to explain them, while
others aim to change and improve these practices. This leads to two types of
planning theories: explanatory (focusing on describing what's happening) and
normative (aiming to guide how things should be done). Both have their own
sets of questions and concerns, influenced by both academic and practical
considerations.
Central question planning theory:
What role can planning play in developing a good city and region within the
constraints of a capitalist political economy and varying political systems?
, 2
Why Do Planning Theory?
1. Challenges in Theory-Practice Relationship: The link between planning theory
and practice is tricky. Many practitioners don't pay much attention to planning
theory, preferring to rely on intuition and practical experience. However,
effective planning requires understanding the underlying theories that shape
spaces and places.
2. Need for Theoretical Understanding: Even if practitioners don't explicitly
engage with theory, it influences their decisions. However, relying solely on
implicit, unexamined theories can hinder critical thinking and evaluation.
There's a call to bridge this gap by making theory more explicit and engaging
in a reflective dialogue between theory and practice.
3. The Role of Theory in Practice: The aim is not to make practitioners
implement complex theoretical concepts directly into their work. Instead,
theory should create a productive tension, encouraging critical thinking and
reflection without expecting direct translation of theoretical ideas into practice.
4. Establishing a Theoretical Foundation: Theory in planning serves to offer a
common ground for understanding, creating a shared language among
planners. It helps in reflecting on past movements, understanding present
challenges, and creating a framework to evaluate different planning
strategies. It gives planners a historical perspective and a way to measure
progress in addressing urban issues.
Fainstein approach to planning theory:
This means that planning theory doesn't just focus on cities and regions as physical
spaces. It looks at them as complex systems influenced by human actions and
decisions. It's not only about understanding how cities and regions are structured but
also about how people, through their planning activities, interact with and shape
these spaces. In essence, it's about studying both the physical aspects of cities and
the human processes that impact them.
, 3
4 eras of planning:
1. Formative Years (Late 1800s to World War I): This era saw the early thinkers
and pioneers like Ebenezer Howard, Patrick Geddes, and Daniel Burnham
laying the groundwork for what would become planning. Interestingly, these
figures didn't identify themselves as "planners" yet. They were exploring ideas
about urban design, regional planning, and city improvement.
2. Institutionalization and Professionalization (1920–45): This phase marked the
formal recognition and professionalization of planning. National and regional
planning efforts gained momentum. Governments started to establish
institutions and frameworks for urban and regional planning. Planning became
recognized as a distinct field of expertise.
3. Postwar Era (1945–75): After World War II, planning faced challenges. There
was a push for standardization in planning practices, but it also encountered
crises, such as urban decay and social issues. This period saw a
diversification of planning approaches as practitioners sought new solutions to
address emerging challenges.
4. Present Era (Post-1975): From the mid-1970s until now, planning has evolved
further. There's been a shift towards redefining planning, particularly in
relation to the private sector. Planners now often act as mediators, strategists,
and advocates within public-private partnerships. There's an emphasis on
collaboration between public and private entities in shaping urban and
regional development.
The history of planning
Alternative narratives by scholars like Foglesong, Marcuse, Harvey, Fishman, and
Self critique this biased history, exploring planning's complexities and diverse actors.
They highlight planning beyond the actions of influential men, revealing plural
histories involving marginalized groups. Writing a more inclusive planning history
acknowledges these overlooked planners and fosters a nuanced, critical view of
contemporary planning, offering insight into its evolution and challenges.
Is planning about means or ends, and which should it emphasize?
The evolution of planning has swung between prioritizing ends (outcomes) and
means (processes). Early planners like Haussmann and Burnham focused on
achieving tangible urban designs. Later, planners emphasized procedures, rules,
and quantification, assuming that following proper methods would guarantee positive
results. Critiques of this approach led to the communicative model, emphasizing
negotiation over prescribing ends or means. Yet, this, too, prioritized process over
outcomes. Counter approaches like advocacy planning aimed to integrate desired
ends with democratic processes, leading to equity planning and the concept of the
, 4
"just city." The "just city" approach stresses that planners should actively pursue fair
outcomes, especially in combating increasing inequality under neoliberal systems.
Justice planning prioritizes not just democratic expression but also economic
structures and the metropolis itself over the activities of planners. (it’s about both).
Why and when should we plan?
1. Though it is most commonly assumed that the alternative is the free market,
it could equally be chaos or domination by powerful private interests
2. People who support planning believe it can replace the unpredictability and
harshness of the market by using a well-thought-out plan. They think this can create
a more sensible and organized environment.
3. Planning serves as an intentional intervention to change existing events, raising
key questions: Why and when should planners intervene?
Planning and the market:
Planning is like stepping in to change things on purpose. People wonder when and
why planners should do this. Some talk about planning versus the free market, but
they forget chaos or when powerful private groups control everything. Those who like
planning think it can make things less uncertain than the market. But planning and
the market are connected—the government shapes markets, like when rules defend
property values. Judging planning depends on how private and public things work
together. Some see planning as a backup when the market messes up, not letting it
do big changes. Others, like fair planners, challenge private groups to make things
more equal. Sometimes, public and private things mix, like when they work together
in groups. Some worry that letting private groups take over public things might turn
citizenship into just buying stuff. But what happens depends on arguments, deals,
and getting people to act together.
How can planning be effective within a mixed economy?
This article talks about how tough it is for planners to really make things happen in a
system that mixes both public and private ways of doing things. Even if planners
want to change how things work, they might not have enough power or know-how
compared to other powerful groups like developers or politicians. They need money
or support from these groups to make their plans real. Plus, they have to follow rules
and work within democracy, sometimes making their ideas less important in the big
picture. In the United States, planners often end up reacting to situations rather than
leading big changes.
The most successful planners in America are the ones who can gather money and
support from both the public and private sides to make things happen. They change
how planners usually work with the government and businesses. This makes
Introduction to spatial planning new summary
Week 1 Articles:
- Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J.(2016) Introduction. The structures and debates of
planning theory. In: Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J. (Eds.). (2015). Readings in
Planning Theory. John Wiley & Sons.
- Marcuse, P. (2011). The three historic currents of city planning. Chapter 6 in:
Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J. (Eds.). (2015). Readings in Planning Theory. John
Wiley & Sons
Article 1: Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J.(2016) Introduction
Goal of the article:
"This guide has two main goals: First, it aims to clearly outline what planning theory
covers and the key writings that make up its main focus. Second, it wants to deal
with the main problems that planners - both thinkers and doers - encounter."
What Is Planning Theory?
Several reasons account for the complexity of defining planning theory:
- Planning in a Broader Context: Planning isn't just about planning itself; it's
connected to bigger questions about how governments, markets, and
communities shape our society and spaces. This mix of ideas from various
fields makes it hard to define planning narrowly.
- Divisions within Planning: There's a split in how people define planning –
some see it in terms of what it does (managing spaces and relationships),
while others see it more about the decision-making process for spatial
development. These different angles create separate sets of questions and
priorities, leading to debates about which approach is more important.
- Diverse Approaches in Planning Theory: There are further divisions within
planning theory. Some study current practices, trying to explain them, while
others aim to change and improve these practices. This leads to two types of
planning theories: explanatory (focusing on describing what's happening) and
normative (aiming to guide how things should be done). Both have their own
sets of questions and concerns, influenced by both academic and practical
considerations.
Central question planning theory:
What role can planning play in developing a good city and region within the
constraints of a capitalist political economy and varying political systems?
, 2
Why Do Planning Theory?
1. Challenges in Theory-Practice Relationship: The link between planning theory
and practice is tricky. Many practitioners don't pay much attention to planning
theory, preferring to rely on intuition and practical experience. However,
effective planning requires understanding the underlying theories that shape
spaces and places.
2. Need for Theoretical Understanding: Even if practitioners don't explicitly
engage with theory, it influences their decisions. However, relying solely on
implicit, unexamined theories can hinder critical thinking and evaluation.
There's a call to bridge this gap by making theory more explicit and engaging
in a reflective dialogue between theory and practice.
3. The Role of Theory in Practice: The aim is not to make practitioners
implement complex theoretical concepts directly into their work. Instead,
theory should create a productive tension, encouraging critical thinking and
reflection without expecting direct translation of theoretical ideas into practice.
4. Establishing a Theoretical Foundation: Theory in planning serves to offer a
common ground for understanding, creating a shared language among
planners. It helps in reflecting on past movements, understanding present
challenges, and creating a framework to evaluate different planning
strategies. It gives planners a historical perspective and a way to measure
progress in addressing urban issues.
Fainstein approach to planning theory:
This means that planning theory doesn't just focus on cities and regions as physical
spaces. It looks at them as complex systems influenced by human actions and
decisions. It's not only about understanding how cities and regions are structured but
also about how people, through their planning activities, interact with and shape
these spaces. In essence, it's about studying both the physical aspects of cities and
the human processes that impact them.
, 3
4 eras of planning:
1. Formative Years (Late 1800s to World War I): This era saw the early thinkers
and pioneers like Ebenezer Howard, Patrick Geddes, and Daniel Burnham
laying the groundwork for what would become planning. Interestingly, these
figures didn't identify themselves as "planners" yet. They were exploring ideas
about urban design, regional planning, and city improvement.
2. Institutionalization and Professionalization (1920–45): This phase marked the
formal recognition and professionalization of planning. National and regional
planning efforts gained momentum. Governments started to establish
institutions and frameworks for urban and regional planning. Planning became
recognized as a distinct field of expertise.
3. Postwar Era (1945–75): After World War II, planning faced challenges. There
was a push for standardization in planning practices, but it also encountered
crises, such as urban decay and social issues. This period saw a
diversification of planning approaches as practitioners sought new solutions to
address emerging challenges.
4. Present Era (Post-1975): From the mid-1970s until now, planning has evolved
further. There's been a shift towards redefining planning, particularly in
relation to the private sector. Planners now often act as mediators, strategists,
and advocates within public-private partnerships. There's an emphasis on
collaboration between public and private entities in shaping urban and
regional development.
The history of planning
Alternative narratives by scholars like Foglesong, Marcuse, Harvey, Fishman, and
Self critique this biased history, exploring planning's complexities and diverse actors.
They highlight planning beyond the actions of influential men, revealing plural
histories involving marginalized groups. Writing a more inclusive planning history
acknowledges these overlooked planners and fosters a nuanced, critical view of
contemporary planning, offering insight into its evolution and challenges.
Is planning about means or ends, and which should it emphasize?
The evolution of planning has swung between prioritizing ends (outcomes) and
means (processes). Early planners like Haussmann and Burnham focused on
achieving tangible urban designs. Later, planners emphasized procedures, rules,
and quantification, assuming that following proper methods would guarantee positive
results. Critiques of this approach led to the communicative model, emphasizing
negotiation over prescribing ends or means. Yet, this, too, prioritized process over
outcomes. Counter approaches like advocacy planning aimed to integrate desired
ends with democratic processes, leading to equity planning and the concept of the
, 4
"just city." The "just city" approach stresses that planners should actively pursue fair
outcomes, especially in combating increasing inequality under neoliberal systems.
Justice planning prioritizes not just democratic expression but also economic
structures and the metropolis itself over the activities of planners. (it’s about both).
Why and when should we plan?
1. Though it is most commonly assumed that the alternative is the free market,
it could equally be chaos or domination by powerful private interests
2. People who support planning believe it can replace the unpredictability and
harshness of the market by using a well-thought-out plan. They think this can create
a more sensible and organized environment.
3. Planning serves as an intentional intervention to change existing events, raising
key questions: Why and when should planners intervene?
Planning and the market:
Planning is like stepping in to change things on purpose. People wonder when and
why planners should do this. Some talk about planning versus the free market, but
they forget chaos or when powerful private groups control everything. Those who like
planning think it can make things less uncertain than the market. But planning and
the market are connected—the government shapes markets, like when rules defend
property values. Judging planning depends on how private and public things work
together. Some see planning as a backup when the market messes up, not letting it
do big changes. Others, like fair planners, challenge private groups to make things
more equal. Sometimes, public and private things mix, like when they work together
in groups. Some worry that letting private groups take over public things might turn
citizenship into just buying stuff. But what happens depends on arguments, deals,
and getting people to act together.
How can planning be effective within a mixed economy?
This article talks about how tough it is for planners to really make things happen in a
system that mixes both public and private ways of doing things. Even if planners
want to change how things work, they might not have enough power or know-how
compared to other powerful groups like developers or politicians. They need money
or support from these groups to make their plans real. Plus, they have to follow rules
and work within democracy, sometimes making their ideas less important in the big
picture. In the United States, planners often end up reacting to situations rather than
leading big changes.
The most successful planners in America are the ones who can gather money and
support from both the public and private sides to make things happen. They change
how planners usually work with the government and businesses. This makes
