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.

Modernism

Modernism was a massive step for urban planning and first began during the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution caused a population explosion within cities by attracting people, from outside the city, closer to factories, markets, transport...etc. As the population within these cities increased the living standards within the centre of the cities (“the slums”) created issues such as poor health/hygiene and decaying social and moral values.   

One of the first measures that arose to tackle these issues included ‘The Parks Movement’. The parks movement was first adopted in London (Victoria Park – 1844-45) which consisted of creating a central park that included recreational facilities and landscaping (walkways, ponds...etc.) which could be accessed by the public.  A central park improved air and water quality whilst creating a separate transport route for pedestrians.

The garden city plan of Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928) greatly contributed to the issues surrounding the industrial revolution. The plan detailed municipal services and amenities such as parks, public gardens, and tree lined boulevards etc. The first garden city was Letchworth which was constructed within proximity of London. Letchworth was planned in accordance with Howards plan however all aspects did not transfer into the final construction.

 

Urban planning was now advancing through modernisation and looking for other ways of advancement into the new age. The Government was starting to show interest in fixing the corruption and managerial inefficiencies within the cities. Urban planning leaned towards looking into the economic and social issues to create a city that functions more efficiently.    

 
All these early concepts still exist today and have been a crucial step in developing the fundamental principals in urban planning.

How Plans Work

 

All great designs are reinforced through a strong framework. Having this framework in place ensures the design works as it was intended. This is also true in urban planning whether it is on a local, regional or national scale. A useful planning tool used to achieve this is a master plan or spatial plan. At the turn of the century these plans were first officially adopted by a city planning commission (Cincinnati’s 1925 Official City Plan) and have continued to this day. These plans were developed to form a structure, protecting the legacy, underlying the city and monumental core, promoting economic development, renewing rivers and open space and improving transportation.

 

Master/spatial plans today may consist of five aspects, including, agendas, policies, visions, designs and strategies. These aspects are referred to as different mechanisms through which plans affect the world.

Plans are a necessity in defining an urban character and structure of a place so that the framework is set as the finer details evolve. Plans today need accurate and up to date data to improve the underlying issues and predict future needs. Once a plan has been developed it is implemented into the planning system to achieve the plans objectives.

A plan can be evaluated, once implemented, to see whether it has achieved the desired outcome. This is undertaken by assessing the effect (effect the plan has had on decision making, actions or outcome), net benefit (was the plan beneficial and to whom), internal validity (did it do what it was intended) and external validity (+or- social benefit). This is the most important part of constructing and implementing a plan because if a plan does not work then what is the point.

The Art of Planning

What is a planner? The Art of Planning according to Eugenie Birch consists of three key aspects (design, craft and presentation). Design is described as the physical aspect of the land and buildings that achieves the visions for the desired communities. Craft is described as the understanding of a number of fields and professions that are involved in the project and Presentation is the overseeing and representation of the product to the relevant stakeholders and the analytical/ethical skills involved in carrying out the planning.

The core purpose and direction of planners have changed considerably in the United States (US) over the last 90 years. Planners in the US began with a very simplified direction considering ‘City Beautiful Plans’ (Daniel Burnham’s Plan for Chicago - 1909) until 1925 when ‘city efficient plans’ were introduced (Official Plan of the City of Cincinnati). This continued to evolve in the 1930’s as scientific considerations were taken into account such as the social and economic aspects.

The early 1940’s brought about the introduction of ‘the Green Book’. This was an instruction manual for planners based on the previous experience of Cincinnati planner Ladislas Segoe. The green book was (and still is) a very useful tool for planners but most importantly imbedded the notion that planning was a technical expertise.

Planners today require a greater understanding of the process and areas within planning as there has been an advancement in technology and a heightened political involvement in planning projects. Planners should be strong mediators and impartial to all professions, people and the agencies that are involved.

Currently planning is a necessary field as more complex issues begin to surface through environmental change, the increase in population and differing trends in society.