Search results

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- List of Figures and Tables -- List of Contributors -- Acknowledgements -- Part I Introduction -- Connections: An Introduction -- Part II Normative Perspectives -- Introduction to Part II -- 1 Professional Ideals and Planning Practice: A Report on Research into Planners' Ideas in Practice in London Borough Planning Departments -- 2 Towards a People-Sensitive Planning -- 3 Re-enchanting Democracy as a Mode of Governance -- 4 Neither Cordelia nor Polonius: Ethical Implications for Planning in the Face of Blatant and Hidden Imbalances of Power, Status and Rights -- 5 Throwing Dice: Between Contingency and Necessity in Spatial Planning -- 6 Planning in Hong Kong, an Undemocratic, Post-colonial Chinese Capitalist Society: Negotiating the Roles of Technocrats, Traditional Public Intellectuals and Reflective Practitioners -- Part III Places and Practice -- Part III.1 The Planning Development Nexus: How Places are Produced and Changed -- Introduction to Part III.1 -- 7 Structure and Agency in Land and Property Development Processes: Some Ideas for Research -- 8 Development Plans and Markets -- 9 Re-thinking the Relations between Planning, State and Market in Unstable Times -- 10 Planning Wild Cities -- 11 The Changing Nature of Property Investment: Implications for Urban Planning -- 12 Re-thinking the Relations between Capitalism, Urban Development and Historic Shifts in Planning Practice -- Part III.2 Doing Planning Work -- Introduction to Part III.2 -- 13 Networking as a Normative Principle with Particular Reference to Local Government and Land Use Planning -- 14 Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory -- 15 City Fathers, Mandarins and Neighbours: Crossing Old Divides in New Partnerships

This article engages with recent debates surrounding non-representational theory and the affective turn in the social sciences, arguing that such thinking offers a particularly useful set of concepts for the discipline of planning. This includes a widened notion of agency to the inclusion of more-than-human bodies (i.e. material agency) and a focus on daily practice and the embodied experience of place. Calling upon the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, the author puts forward affective atmospheres as a post-humanist way of studying socio-spatial processes associated with place identity and the spatial imaginaries that animate planning activity. Recognising the co-constitutive nature of research and social worlds, the article offers a performative methodology that situates researchers directly within the material and discursive environments they seek to investigate.

pt. 1. Practising hope / Libby Porter -- pt. 2. Economic development and regionalism / Haripriya Rangan -- pt. 3. World cities and the good city : contradictions and possibilities / Haripriya Rangan -- pt. 4. Social learning, communities, and empowered citizenship / Jacquelyn Chase -- pt. 5. Chinese urbanism / Mee Kam Ng.

AbstractThe first utilizations of social justice theory as a guide to planning theory and practice were founded on David Harvey's attempt to incorporate issues of redistributive justice into geographical methods of analysis. Later conceptualizations utilize Iris Marion Young's view of social justice as an institutional condition that enables participation and overcomes oppression and domination through the achievement of self‐development and self‐determination. These two conceptual paths create a constructive argumentative tension that should underlie contemporary spatial planning in democratic societies. This means that, in order to contribute to more socially just urban societies, planning needs to be focused not only on patterns of distribution, but also on the relational social structures and institutional contexts in which these come about. Comprehensive and functionalist, mainstream planning in Portugal is unmistakably situated within the modernist planning project. We argue that the normative disposition of the identified argumentative tension undermines the theoretical capacity of modernist practices to achieve socially just territories. The aim of this article is to study the validity of this argument by analyzing the Portuguese planning system against a twofold set of social justice criteria.RésuméLes premiers recours à la justice sociale comme guide en matière de théorie et pratique de l'aménagement urbain s'appuyaient sur la tentative de David Harvey d'intégrer des aspects de justice redistributive dans les méthodes d'analyse géographiques. Plus tard, d'autres conceptions se serviront de la perspective d'Iris Marion Young sur la justice sociale comme condition institutionnelle permettant la participation tout en surmontant oppression et domination grâce au développement personnel et à l'autodétermination. Ces deux voies conceptuelles créent une tension argumentaire constructive qui devrait sous‐tendre l'aménagement spatial contemporain dans les sociétés démocratiques. Autrement dit, pour contribuer à des sociétés urbaines plus justes socialement, l'aménagement doit s'attacher, non seulement aux schémas de distribution, mais aussi aux structures sociales relationnelles et cadres institutionnels dans lesquels ses schémas opèrent. L'aménagement urbain portugais, conventionnel, général et fonctionnaliste, se situe immanquablement dans un projet d'urbanisation moderniste. Selon nous, la nature normative de la tension argumentaire établie entrave la capacité théorique des pratiques modernistes à aboutir à des territoires justes au plan social. L'article étudie la validité de cet argument en analysant le système d'aménagement urbain portugais en fonction de deux gammes de critères de justice sociale.

In this article the arrangements for the participatory planning of the five largest Finnish cities are examined from the perspectives of both democracy and planning theories. Four paradigms that form the continuum of general planning theoretical debate are identified as being relevant in the Finnish context: comprehensive-rationalistic, incrementalist, consensus-oriented communicative and conflict-oriented agonistic planning theory. These are discussed in relation to the parallel development of democracy theory: from the aggregative to the deliberative and further to the agonistic model of democracy. The empirical study reveals that while each paradigm shift in theory purports to replace the former theory with a new one, in practice the new theory emerges as a new addition to the palette of coexisting theoretical sources, to be drawn upon as a source of guidance and inspiration in organizing participatory planning. The five Finnish cities combine traits of different theories in their arrangements of planning participation, often in a fashion that generates institutional ambiguity. The argument concludes with discussing the necessity of further empirical and developmental research, where the contexts of both planning theory and democracy theory are related to the institutional challenges of planning conduct. If this does not happen the emerging agonistic planning theory, too, may become a paradigm shift at the level of theory only, thereby contributing to the widening gap between theory and practice.

Napor na uključenju načela održivosti u osnove prostornog planiranja u današnjem postsocijalističkom svijetu traži nove odnose između ustaljenih i suvremenih sudionika. Pojedini interesenti uključeni u razvoj, upravljanje i politiku djeluju na ishod regionalnih i urbanih sustava u Hrvatskoj ponekad bez obraćanja pozornosti na održivost. Njihovo djelovanje pokazuje nedostatak svijesti i negativan odnos prema održivosti u planerskoj praksi gdje je glavni cilj unaprijediti kakvoću života sadašnjih i budućih naraštaja. Bez dobrih ideja o nosivim kapacitetima i održivosti, neki od ovih sudionika zanemaruju planerska znanja i ekspertizu (CAVRIĆ, NEDOVIĆ – BUDIĆ, 2007.). Vještinama i znanjima planeri ih savjetuju, međutim, glavna pokretačka sila još je uvijek politički utjecaj. Takvi predlagači uspijevaju zaštititi svoje osobne probitke glede prostora i zemljišta nauštrb javnosti i običnih građana, podržavajući sustav izrade "preslikanih" planerskih izvješća, pogodujući tek daljem urbanom širenju i nenadziranoj izgradnji. Na žalost, poradi dužega vremenskog društvenog ignoriranja i jake sveze lobija investitora, arhitekata i građevinara, različite međunarodne planerske ideje s "održivošću na umu" još ne utječu na hrvatsku teoriju i praksu planiranja. Neke su od njih jednostavno neprihvaćane, netočno tumačene ili odbacivane zahvaljujući krutoj zakonskoj regulativi, nepostojanju formalnog školovanja planera i povlaštenom položaju tek jednog tipa ovlaštenih planera tj. arhitekata . Osjetljivost za alternativna razvojna rješenja, sudjelovanje javnosti, novine u ponašanju, organizaciji i tehnologijama, raznovrsnost pomagala za provedbu u planerskoj "kutiji s alatima", kao i različite vrste planerskih poslova u usmjeravanju održivih promjena, tek treba prepoznati u zemlji koja je u procesu pristupanja EU. Unatoč tomu, ovaj rad teži sumirati održivost i njezine sastavnice kao nove postavke, u kojima je glavna misao vodilja novoga globalnog pristupa planiranju, objavljena od Centra za ljudska naselja Ujedinjenih Naroda (UNCHS) kako slijedi: "Novo planiranje je manje kodirano i tehničko, više inovativno i poduzetničko. Ono je više sudioničko i usmjerenije projektima nego cjelovitim prostornim sustavima. Plansku ekspertizu sve češće ne zahtijeva samo država već i dioničarski i javni dijelovi građanskog društva. Prijeporno nije planiranje samo po sebi, nego njegov cilj: da li ga voditi uglavnom učinkovitošću, jačajući postojeću razdiobu bogatstva i moći, ili bi trebalo odigrati distribucijsku ulogu da može pomoći pri stvaranju minimalnih standarda urbanog življenja" (Hague, 2001.). ; Effort to incorporate sustainability aspects into the spatial planning agenda requires new relationships between conventional and new players in today's post-socialist world. Some stakeholders engaged in development, management and governance are sometimes tailoring the destiny of regional and urban systems in Croatia without sustainability concerns. Their activities show the lack of awareness and negative attitude towards sustainable planning practices where the major goal is to improve the quality of life of current and future generations. Without sound ideas about carrying capacities and sustainability, some of these actors have ignored the planning knowledge and expertise (CAVRIĆ, NEDOVIĆ – BUDIĆ, 2007). Planners advise upon them with their professional skill and knowledge but the driving force is still political power. These proponents have managed to safeguard their own spatial and land interests on the expense of the public and ordinary citizens, by maintaining the system of "copy-paste" planning blue prints, suitable for supporting emerging urban sprawl and uncontrolled construction activities. Unfortunately, due to the long-term social ignorance and strong alliance of developer's lobbies, architects and constructors, various international planning ideas with "sustainability in mind" have not affected Croatian planning theory and practice, yet. Some of them are petrified, misinterpreted or simply abolished owing to obstinate legislation, the non-existence of formal planning education, and the privileged position of only one brand of chartered planners (e.g. architects) . Alternative development solutions, such as public participation, behavioral, organizational and technological advances, diversity of implementing instruments in the planner's "toolkit", and the planner's numerous tasks in guiding sustainable change, are still to be recognized in this EU accession country. Notwithstanding, this paper aims to summaries sustainability and its derivates as the new paradigms, in which the guiding leitmotif of the new global agenda for planning is spelled out by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (2001b) as follows: "The new planning is less coded and technical, more innovative and entrepreneurial. It is more participatory and concerned with projects rather than whole spatial systems. Planning expertise is increasingly sought not only by the state, but also by the corporate sector and civil society. What is controversial is not planning per se, but its goal: whether it should be directed chiefly at efficiency, reinforcing the current distribution of wealth and power, or whether it should play a distributive role to help create minimum standards of urban liveability" (Hague, 2001).