Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

History & Theory of Planning: Introduction to Planning


Published on

Planning History, Theory

Published in: Education

History & Theory of Planning: Introduction to Planning

  1. 1. PLAN 3022: Planning History & Theory Week 01: Introduction to Planning Anuradha Mukherji Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning
  2. 2. What is Planning? • A process by which we attempt to shape the future? Forward looking. Seeks to determine future action. According to the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP), the field has focused on: • Improvement of settlements • Community interconnections • Plan-making for future • Social & economic equity • Citizen participation in process
  3. 3. Who are Planners?
  4. 4. Who are Planners?
  5. 5. Who are Planners?
  6. 6. Who are Planners? • Where From: - A variety of backgrounds - Formal training in planning • For who: - Government, all levels (local, state, federal, inter- government organizations) - Private Non-profits - Private sector (consultants, companies) • Expertise: Specialists & Generalists - Transportation planner, neighborhood planner, economic development planner
  7. 7. Role of Planners • Represent the public (who is the public?) • Assist decision-makers • Moderators / Mediators • Deal with wicked problems Ill and variously defined A lack of consensus regarding their causes Lack obvious solutions Have numerous links to other problems • Location, political cultures, economic cycles, local power configuration – all impact planners and planning • Need: Political smarts, excellent communication skills
  8. 8. Planning Stakeholders Planners accomplish little by themselves • Property Owners • Bankers • Developers • Architects • Lawyers • Contractors • Community groups • Civic organizations • Elected and appointed public officials • Municipal employees
  9. 9. Political Nature of Planning • “Planning action can significantly affect the lives of large numbers of people, and since different individuals and groups may hold different views about how the environment should be planned, based on values and interests, it is therefore also a political activity.” (Nigel Taylor, 1998) • Political support needed for acceptance and implementation of plans • Need: Political smarts, excellent communication skills
  10. 10. Political Nature of Planning ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE POLITICAL NATURE OF PLANNING • Acceptance • Acting Upon • Ill-prepared to act upon the political content of work • Lack understanding of the political system (ignorance) • Lack knowledge of the techniques needed to function effectively within it (inadequate education) • Feel overwhelmed by the political forces (despair) • Reject the notion that planning is subject to political power (denial)
  11. 11. Political Nature of Planning FUTURE PLANNING GRADUATES? “New planners often expert their work to involve more or less rational analysis to solve relatively well-defined problems. Instead, they find complex relationships with other professionals, bureaucratic managers, elected officials, and community groups. Many have difficulty making or affecting decisions under political conditions; many wish for securely technical roles. Apparently, such planners expect to conduct research, but are not prepared for interaction and intervention. (Howell Baum)”
  12. 12. Planning Challenges BROAD SCOPE OF PLANNING: • Proper use of land • Neighborhood revitalization • Suburban sprawl • Growth management • Inadequate transportation systems • Shortage of affordable housing • Air and water quality • Decaying infrastructure • Inadequate or outmoded parks and recreation • Social Equity ALSO ISSUES OF: Crime, Public Health, Hunger, Economic Development, Public Schools
  13. 13. Planning vs. Plan Cullingworth & Caves (2003), pp. 6-8
  14. 14. Planning vs. Plan Cullingworth & Caves (2003), pp. 6-8
  15. 15. Planning vs. Plan Cullingworth & Caves (2003), pp. 6-8
  16. 16. Planning vs. Plan Cullingworth & Caves (2003), pp. 6-8
  17. 17. Planning Theory
  18. 18. Why Planning Theory 1. Complexity of data and issues in planning Theory gives a basis for: - What data we collect - How we organize it - How we use it to make decisions 2. Values and questions planners face WHAT is or should be the topic or focus of planning? WHO does the planner work for? WHY: What is the goal of planning? HOW do we achieve the goals? WHAT is practical/pragmatic behavior/expections? But also cumulative knowledge of history and ideas that help understand the processes that planners engage in.
  19. 19. What is Planning Theory 1. Broader inquiry concerning the role of the state in social and spatial transformation. Overlaps theory in all social sciences. Hard to limit scope or stake out a turf specific to planning. 1. Boundary between planners and related professionals (i.e., real estate developers, architects, city council) is not mutually exclusive. Planners don’t just plan and non-planners also plan. Hard to distinguish planning from broader forces of urbanization and recognize what exactly planners do. Who exactly designs, builds, manages, and finally tears down cities? 1. Field divided between those who define it according to its object (land use patterns) and those who look at its method (the process of decision making). Driven by separate set of theoretical questions and priorities. 1. Most fields defined by a set of methodologies. Planning borrows diverse methodologies from many different fields. It is defined more by a shared interest in space and place, commitment to civic community & pragmatic orientation toward professional practice.
  20. 20. Planning Theory – Defining Debates By Campbell & Fainstein, 1996, pp. 1-14 Planning History: A critical reflective look at political, economic & cultural forces that continually transform planning ideology & practice. A. Late 1800s – 1910: The formative years during which the pioneers (Ebenezer Howard, Daniel Burnham, etc.) did not yet identify themselves as planners. B. 1910 – 1945: The period of institutionalization, professionalization, and self- recognition of planning, together with the rise of regional and national planning efforts. C. The postwar era of standardization, crisis, and diversification of planning What are the historical roots of planning? (The role of history in planning theory) - IDENTITY1
  21. 21. Planning Theory – Defining Debates By Campbell & Fainstein, 1996, pp. 1-14 Why Plan? “Planning is intervention with an intention to alter the existing course of events (p.6).” Why and in what situations should planners intervene? • When and how much should the government ‘intrude’? • Blurring of sectoral boundaries (public-private sectors) • The growing public-private partnership and non-profit (or third sector) Are the (new) alternative plans good? “The hope of rational planning is (simply) to replace the uncertainty of the market with the logic of the plan (p.6).” What is the justification for planning? When should one intervene?2
  22. 22. Planning Theory – Defining Debates By Campbell & Fainstein, 1996, pp. 1-14 Serving the public interest? Emergence of private and quasi-private planners – Owe loyalty to the public at large? What are planning functions? Merely provide technical activities to decision makers? Or beyond that… to address larger social, economic, and environmental challenges? Difficulties surrounding the planner’s role as expert? Balance between expertise and citizen input Sensitive subjects, which particular social groups must bear the costs – e.g., highways and waste disposal facilities ‘Rules of the game’ What values are incorporated within planning?3
  23. 23. Planning Theory – Defining Debates By Campbell & Fainstein, 1996, pp. 1-14 Contexts • Constraints of capitalist political economy and their urban visions • Compete with developers, consumers, and other powerful groups Ownership of resources Planners cannot command the resources to make it happen. Instead, they must rely on either private investment or a commitment from political leaders Reliance on bureaucracy They work within the constraints of democracy and of the governmental bureaucracy The constrains on planning power: Planning effectiveness in a mixed economy?4
  24. 24. Planning Theory – Defining Debates By Campbell & Fainstein, 1996, pp. 1-14 Comprehensiveness (rational planning) Realistic?  Incremental planning (Lindblom) True public?  Advocacy planning (Davidoff) Equity planning (Krumholz) Planning Approach / Styles 5
  25. 25. Planning Theory – Defining Debates By Campbell & Fainstein, 1996, pp. 1-14 Comprehensive vs. incremental planning Objectivity vs. advocacy Centralization vs. decentralization Top-down vs. bottom-up leadership Planning for people vs. planning for place DEBATES OVER PUBLIC INTEREST