Domain of planning theory 
• Deals with ideas and arguments related to the conduct of 
planning 
• Aims to provide some overall or general understanding of 
the nature of planning 
– What sort of activity is planning? 
– What should it aim to do? 
– What are its effects on social life? 
– What are its effects on urban morphology and function? 
– What are the components of good quality urban environments? 
– Under what conditions are these qualities most likely to be 
realised? 
– What part can planning play in creating better/liveable cities?
Baseline - modernism 
form 
purpose 
design 
hierarchy 
mastery/the word/logos 
totalization/synthesis 
centring 
meta/grand narratives 
determinacy 
transcendence 
metaphysics
Utopian comprehensiveness 
• planning as a physical and 
technical act, an extension of 
architecture and civil 
engineering 
• master plans (e.g. UK Town 
and Country Planning Act 
1947; Tasmanian Town and 
Country Planning Act, 1945 
• key concern with aesthetics 
(set of principles of good 
taste and appreciation of 
beauty)
• “the art and science of ordering the use of land and the 
character and siting of buildings and communicative routes 
… Planning … deals primarily with land, and is not 
economic social or political planning, though it may 
greatly assist in the realisation of the aims of these other 
kinds of planning” (Keeble 1952, 1).
Survey-Analysis-Plan 
• Sir Patrick Geddes (1854-1932) 
• Garden City advocate in Scotland 
• Cities in Evolution, 1915 
• “called for the completion of a 
complex city survey of local and 
regional conditions (including 
physical, social, cultural and 
historical) that should precede any 
planning efforts by local government 
boards” (Le Gates and Stout 1996, 
360)
Survey-Analysis-Plan 
• “In short, passable Town Planning 
Schemes may be obtained without this 
preliminary Survey and Exhibition which 
we desire to see in each town and city; but 
the best possible cannot be expected. From 
the confused growth of the recent 
industrial past, we tend to be as yet easily 
contented with any improvements; this, 
however, will not long satisfy us, and still 
less our successors. This Act seeks to open 
a new and better era, and to render possible 
cities which may again be beautiful: it 
proceeds from Housing to Town 
(Extension) Planning, and it thus raises 
inevitably before each municipality the 
question of town planning at its best - in 
fact of city development and city design” 
(Geddes 1915, in Le Gates and Stout 1996, 
363).
Physical planning 
• Reflected certain values 
underpinned by 
– utopian 
comprehensiveness 
– Anti/pro urban 
aestheticism in tension 
– highly ordered view of 
urban structure 
– assumed consensus over 
the aims of planning as 
technical exercise
Physical planning 
• Later criticised for 
– Hubris 
– Poor quality 
– Social blindness 
– Physical 
determinism 
– Lack of empirical 
grounding 
– Naivete
Rational systems 
• Late 1960s - new systems approach 
• Planning - systems analysis and control 
• Environment - interconnected system of parts 
– Capable of being organized 
– Capable of being optimized 
• Indebted to cybernetics (science of systems of control 
and communications in animals and machines) 
• McLoughlin 1969, Urban and Regional Planning - a 
systems approach 
• Chadwick 1971, A Systems View of Planning 
• Faludi 1973, Planning Theory 
• Bruton 1974, Spirit and Purpose of Planning
• Parts-whole-connections- Rational systems 
interdependence 
• Location theory 
• Dynamism and change not 
master plans and blueprints 
• Indebted to 
– First principles based on pure 
reason 
• Clean sweep 
redevelopment, especially 
housing, industry, roads 
– Kuhn’s ideas about paradigm 
shifts 
– Changes in land use and 
transport activities 
– Globalization and the rise in 
power of the MNCs/TNCs 
– Demography 
– Ecology 
– Quantitative revolution
Rational systems 
• Systematic planning 
was substantive 
planning 
(environmental change) 
• Rational planning was 
procedural planning 
(processes of going 
about planning) 
• Both indebted to 
scientific method (after 
Karl Popper) 
Define goals/problems 
Find alternatives 
Evaluate alternatives 
Implement plan/policy 
Monitor effects
Rational systems 
• Means not ends - thus instrumental not “a model of 
substantive moral reasoning” (Taylor 1998, 71) 
• Corrupted - based as much on persuasion as procedure 
• Alternative view/critique - Lindblom - disjointed 
incrementalism only possible approach” 
• “…in most situations, planning has to be piecemeal, 
incremental, opportunistic and pragmatic, and … 
planners who did not or could not operate in these 
ways were generally ineffective” (Taylor 1998, 71).
Backlash 
• The best plan is not 
always the best plan 
• Failure of modernism - 
> urban protests - > 
challenge to utilitarian 
prescriptions 
(Bentham’s felicific 
calculus) and lack of 
distributive justice 
• Ideology behind science 
• Realisation/Admission 
of the politics inherent 
in planning
Backlash 
• “The question is not whether planning will reflect 
politics but whose politics it will reflect. What 
values and whose values will planners seek to 
implement? … In the broadest sense [plans] 
represent political philosophies, ways of 
implementing differing conceptions of the good 
life. No longer can the planner take refuge in the 
neutrality of the objectivity of the personally 
uninvolved scientist” (N. Long 1959, 168).
Planning, choice and 
advocacy 
• Reaction to rational and systems planning 
• Choice theory of planning (Paul Davidoff and Thomas 
Reiner) 
– Planning’s ends are goals for the future 
– These goals are determined via the identification of alternative 
futures 
– These ideal futures are narrowed down to plausible and possible 
futures 
– This narrowing is inherently political 
– Planners should be involved only in the technical elements of this 
work
Planning, choice and 
advocacy 
• Davidoff’s recant - 
Advocacy model of 
planning (democracy as 
pluralism) 
– Civil society depends on an 
informed public 
– Informed public derives from 
public consultation 
– Public consultation 
galvanises social movements 
• Levels of advocacy 
– Community forums/public 
meetings/focus groups … 
– Planners as translators 
• Levels of participation 
– Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of 
citizen participation 
Citizen control 
Delegated power 
Partnership 
Placation 
Consultation 
Informing 
Therapy 
manipulation 
Degrees 
of citizen 
power 
Degrees of 
tokenism 
Non-participation
Rapprochement or 
resentment 
• Political claims accommodated 
procedurally via consultation 
• “if the planning powers involved in 
plan preparation and plan 
implementation … are essentially 
powers to prevent … then the 
actual development which does 
take place depends on the … 
‘developers’ (Pickvance 1977, 70) 
• Still criticized (eg Hall, 
Friedmann) for 
– Tokenism 
– Paternalism 
– Incomplete analysis 
Capital 
The state 
The planner 
The people
Radical alternatives 
• Marxist/leftist views of the political economy and 
planning 
• Historical materialism 
– Modes of production (private ownership of means of production 
and exchange) 
– Social relations of production 
– Social rules and laws (informal institutional rules) 
– Systems of power and politics (formal institutional rules) 
• Power as hegemonic (Gramsci, Foucault) 
• Radical planning theorists viewed “capitalism as an 
(imperfectly) integrated economic and social system, in 
which the state and planning were part and parcel” 
(Taylor 1998, 105).
Radical 
alternatives 
• “Planning is necessary to the ruling class 
in order to facilitate [capital] 
accumulation and maintain social control 
in the face of class conflict. The modes 
by which urban planners assist 
accumulation include the development 
of physical infrastructure, land 
aggregation and development, 
containment of negative environmental 
externalities, and the maintenance of 
land values … Urban planners specialize 
in managing the contradictions of 
capitalism manifested in urban form and 
spatial development” (Fainstein and 
Fainstein 1979, 148-9).
Equity planning 
• “those who consciously 
seek to redistribute power, 
resources, or participation 
away from local elites and 
toward poor and working 
class city residents” 
(Krumholz in Sandercock 
1998, 93) 
• With John Forester, 
Making Equity Planning 
Work (1990) 
• State and capital 
reconstituted as capable of 
capture by those interested 
in distributive justice - 
negotiated settlements
Communicative action - or what happened 
to implementation? 
• Planning’s limited success - the 
implementation deficit 
• Misconstrual 
– Planning comes before action 
– Planning is not action 
– (A weakness of the policy cycle 
more generally) 
• Friedmann’s theories of 
communicative action (praxis?) 
– The problem of action 
– The problem of the quality of action 
– Rational action? 
plan 
action
Communicative action - or what happened 
to implementation? 
• Public policy 
implementation 
– Ability to identify actors 
needed 
– Capacity to establish 
contacts and networks 
– Capacity to negotiate given 
multiple [and often tacit] 
agenda 
– Policy resides within action 
• Communicative action as 
multiple flows rather than 
linear stages of 
consultation 
plan 
action
Communicative action and then... 
• Habermas - theory of communicative action 
– Effective communication 
• Comprehensible/intelligible 
• Truth/veracity 
• Sincere 
• Legitimate 
• Normative ideal for participatory processes in planning 
• Note basic agreement among all the foregoing about 
social democracy … and then ...
New right - No plan 
• Decentralization 
• Privatization 
• Market 
• Minimal government 
• No society only individuals 
• No planning - the common law, 
private covenants and notional 
land-use zoning (e.g. UK 
Enterprise Zones) 
• Regime and regulation theories 
• Micro- and macro- economic 
reform 
• Efficiencies, competitive 
neutrality
(Post)modern refrains? 
• Move from grand narratives to problem centred planning 
– Inner city decline - urban regeneration 
– Economic boom - social inequalities 
– Ecological crisis - sustainable development 
– Urban ugliness - urban design 
– State control - public participation 
• Two major shifts 
– Design - science 
– Planners as technicians - planners as (social) scientists 
– Were these paradigmatic shifts, however?

planning theory

  • 1.
    Domain of planningtheory • Deals with ideas and arguments related to the conduct of planning • Aims to provide some overall or general understanding of the nature of planning – What sort of activity is planning? – What should it aim to do? – What are its effects on social life? – What are its effects on urban morphology and function? – What are the components of good quality urban environments? – Under what conditions are these qualities most likely to be realised? – What part can planning play in creating better/liveable cities?
  • 2.
    Baseline - modernism form purpose design hierarchy mastery/the word/logos totalization/synthesis centring meta/grand narratives determinacy transcendence metaphysics
  • 3.
    Utopian comprehensiveness •planning as a physical and technical act, an extension of architecture and civil engineering • master plans (e.g. UK Town and Country Planning Act 1947; Tasmanian Town and Country Planning Act, 1945 • key concern with aesthetics (set of principles of good taste and appreciation of beauty)
  • 4.
    • “the artand science of ordering the use of land and the character and siting of buildings and communicative routes … Planning … deals primarily with land, and is not economic social or political planning, though it may greatly assist in the realisation of the aims of these other kinds of planning” (Keeble 1952, 1).
  • 5.
    Survey-Analysis-Plan • SirPatrick Geddes (1854-1932) • Garden City advocate in Scotland • Cities in Evolution, 1915 • “called for the completion of a complex city survey of local and regional conditions (including physical, social, cultural and historical) that should precede any planning efforts by local government boards” (Le Gates and Stout 1996, 360)
  • 6.
    Survey-Analysis-Plan • “Inshort, passable Town Planning Schemes may be obtained without this preliminary Survey and Exhibition which we desire to see in each town and city; but the best possible cannot be expected. From the confused growth of the recent industrial past, we tend to be as yet easily contented with any improvements; this, however, will not long satisfy us, and still less our successors. This Act seeks to open a new and better era, and to render possible cities which may again be beautiful: it proceeds from Housing to Town (Extension) Planning, and it thus raises inevitably before each municipality the question of town planning at its best - in fact of city development and city design” (Geddes 1915, in Le Gates and Stout 1996, 363).
  • 7.
    Physical planning •Reflected certain values underpinned by – utopian comprehensiveness – Anti/pro urban aestheticism in tension – highly ordered view of urban structure – assumed consensus over the aims of planning as technical exercise
  • 8.
    Physical planning •Later criticised for – Hubris – Poor quality – Social blindness – Physical determinism – Lack of empirical grounding – Naivete
  • 9.
    Rational systems •Late 1960s - new systems approach • Planning - systems analysis and control • Environment - interconnected system of parts – Capable of being organized – Capable of being optimized • Indebted to cybernetics (science of systems of control and communications in animals and machines) • McLoughlin 1969, Urban and Regional Planning - a systems approach • Chadwick 1971, A Systems View of Planning • Faludi 1973, Planning Theory • Bruton 1974, Spirit and Purpose of Planning
  • 10.
    • Parts-whole-connections- Rationalsystems interdependence • Location theory • Dynamism and change not master plans and blueprints • Indebted to – First principles based on pure reason • Clean sweep redevelopment, especially housing, industry, roads – Kuhn’s ideas about paradigm shifts – Changes in land use and transport activities – Globalization and the rise in power of the MNCs/TNCs – Demography – Ecology – Quantitative revolution
  • 11.
    Rational systems •Systematic planning was substantive planning (environmental change) • Rational planning was procedural planning (processes of going about planning) • Both indebted to scientific method (after Karl Popper) Define goals/problems Find alternatives Evaluate alternatives Implement plan/policy Monitor effects
  • 12.
    Rational systems •Means not ends - thus instrumental not “a model of substantive moral reasoning” (Taylor 1998, 71) • Corrupted - based as much on persuasion as procedure • Alternative view/critique - Lindblom - disjointed incrementalism only possible approach” • “…in most situations, planning has to be piecemeal, incremental, opportunistic and pragmatic, and … planners who did not or could not operate in these ways were generally ineffective” (Taylor 1998, 71).
  • 13.
    Backlash • Thebest plan is not always the best plan • Failure of modernism - > urban protests - > challenge to utilitarian prescriptions (Bentham’s felicific calculus) and lack of distributive justice • Ideology behind science • Realisation/Admission of the politics inherent in planning
  • 14.
    Backlash • “Thequestion is not whether planning will reflect politics but whose politics it will reflect. What values and whose values will planners seek to implement? … In the broadest sense [plans] represent political philosophies, ways of implementing differing conceptions of the good life. No longer can the planner take refuge in the neutrality of the objectivity of the personally uninvolved scientist” (N. Long 1959, 168).
  • 15.
    Planning, choice and advocacy • Reaction to rational and systems planning • Choice theory of planning (Paul Davidoff and Thomas Reiner) – Planning’s ends are goals for the future – These goals are determined via the identification of alternative futures – These ideal futures are narrowed down to plausible and possible futures – This narrowing is inherently political – Planners should be involved only in the technical elements of this work
  • 16.
    Planning, choice and advocacy • Davidoff’s recant - Advocacy model of planning (democracy as pluralism) – Civil society depends on an informed public – Informed public derives from public consultation – Public consultation galvanises social movements • Levels of advocacy – Community forums/public meetings/focus groups … – Planners as translators • Levels of participation – Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation Citizen control Delegated power Partnership Placation Consultation Informing Therapy manipulation Degrees of citizen power Degrees of tokenism Non-participation
  • 17.
    Rapprochement or resentment • Political claims accommodated procedurally via consultation • “if the planning powers involved in plan preparation and plan implementation … are essentially powers to prevent … then the actual development which does take place depends on the … ‘developers’ (Pickvance 1977, 70) • Still criticized (eg Hall, Friedmann) for – Tokenism – Paternalism – Incomplete analysis Capital The state The planner The people
  • 18.
    Radical alternatives •Marxist/leftist views of the political economy and planning • Historical materialism – Modes of production (private ownership of means of production and exchange) – Social relations of production – Social rules and laws (informal institutional rules) – Systems of power and politics (formal institutional rules) • Power as hegemonic (Gramsci, Foucault) • Radical planning theorists viewed “capitalism as an (imperfectly) integrated economic and social system, in which the state and planning were part and parcel” (Taylor 1998, 105).
  • 19.
    Radical alternatives •“Planning is necessary to the ruling class in order to facilitate [capital] accumulation and maintain social control in the face of class conflict. The modes by which urban planners assist accumulation include the development of physical infrastructure, land aggregation and development, containment of negative environmental externalities, and the maintenance of land values … Urban planners specialize in managing the contradictions of capitalism manifested in urban form and spatial development” (Fainstein and Fainstein 1979, 148-9).
  • 20.
    Equity planning •“those who consciously seek to redistribute power, resources, or participation away from local elites and toward poor and working class city residents” (Krumholz in Sandercock 1998, 93) • With John Forester, Making Equity Planning Work (1990) • State and capital reconstituted as capable of capture by those interested in distributive justice - negotiated settlements
  • 21.
    Communicative action -or what happened to implementation? • Planning’s limited success - the implementation deficit • Misconstrual – Planning comes before action – Planning is not action – (A weakness of the policy cycle more generally) • Friedmann’s theories of communicative action (praxis?) – The problem of action – The problem of the quality of action – Rational action? plan action
  • 22.
    Communicative action -or what happened to implementation? • Public policy implementation – Ability to identify actors needed – Capacity to establish contacts and networks – Capacity to negotiate given multiple [and often tacit] agenda – Policy resides within action • Communicative action as multiple flows rather than linear stages of consultation plan action
  • 23.
    Communicative action andthen... • Habermas - theory of communicative action – Effective communication • Comprehensible/intelligible • Truth/veracity • Sincere • Legitimate • Normative ideal for participatory processes in planning • Note basic agreement among all the foregoing about social democracy … and then ...
  • 24.
    New right -No plan • Decentralization • Privatization • Market • Minimal government • No society only individuals • No planning - the common law, private covenants and notional land-use zoning (e.g. UK Enterprise Zones) • Regime and regulation theories • Micro- and macro- economic reform • Efficiencies, competitive neutrality
  • 25.
    (Post)modern refrains? •Move from grand narratives to problem centred planning – Inner city decline - urban regeneration – Economic boom - social inequalities – Ecological crisis - sustainable development – Urban ugliness - urban design – State control - public participation • Two major shifts – Design - science – Planners as technicians - planners as (social) scientists – Were these paradigmatic shifts, however?