New Planning Theory

Contemporary planning theory as defined by Susan Fainstein, ‘what is the possibility of consciously achieving widespread improvement in the quality of human life within the context of a global capitalist political economy?’  In recent times three planning models have been identified to overcome down-falls in planning practices.  The three models include the communicative model, new urbanism, and the just city. 

The communicative model is where the planner takes a mediator’s role, where the planners’ primary function is to listen and inform participants.  The planner is there to mediate proceedings and to make sure that no group dominates until a census is formed.  This type of model does not always get the most desirable outcome as it is a lengthy process which may wear down participants.  There is also the issue that if the final decision is not a workable solution the process collapses as no other alternatives have been considered.

New urbanism takes more of a design orientated approach that resembles that of the early planning theorists, aiming for a close-knit social community.  New urbanists aim to provide a variety of building types and mixed uses, a selection of housing products and a strong focus on the public realm.  Although, in this model, planners may be perceived as creating new areas rather than fixing the established areas.

The just city model takes a normative approach concentrating on the distribution of social benefits.  This includes providing a great welfare for society and generating wealth with the aim to provide a future of middle class society.  These views are good in theory by providing a ‘just city for all’, however, this theory may be setting sights too far into the future.

These three models each have their pros and cons but may be best implemented through a combined planning model.

Planning Theory Since 1945

Has there been a paradigm shift in planning since 1945?  A paradigm shift means a change in fundamental views and theories that hold a strong standing in society.  Planning has been evolving and developing from the Second World War.  Prior to 1960 town planning greatly relied on architecture (physical concepts) to develop cities.  Planners usually had well developed skills in planning the physical design and aesthetics of a city, however, this idea radically changed in the 1960’s bringing about the modernist movement.  This cannot be described as a paradigm shift as the physical design and aesthetics of a city are still considered as important concepts even in this day and age.

The 1960’s brought about a more communicative approach to planning.  The planner was to become a mediator between the participants in the planning process.  This brought about a shift of a planner being a technical expert to a planner being a manager and communicator.  This could not be considered a paradigm shift as the planner did not dismiss the traditional planning concepts.

In the 1980’s a post-modernist view began to emerge which threw away the plain geometrical style of buildings and concentrated on variety, choice and architectural styles.  Does this mean that architecture and planning should be separate?  Architecture is a useful tool for planning, however, if the planner concentrates on one field, will this still achieve an impartial decision?

In conclusion there does not seem to be a change radical enough to be defined as a paradigm shift and I believe there never will be.  Planning just seems to be evolving and developing to meet the changing needs of society and shift in Government expectations.