The Americanization of Australian Planning & Canberra

The Americanization of planning refers to the influence that American planning has had on planning exercises and solutions around the world, especially in western countries. In Australia, the impact of American planning is remarkably significant because of the similarities between the two countries (Freestone, 2004, p. 187). The Americanization of Australian planning has been profound after WWII (Freestone, 2004, p. 198), but the first influences of Americanization can be found in early 20^th century when American planner Walter B. Griffin won the design competition of Canberra (Freestone, 2004, p. 191).

One of the key features of American planning after WWII was the creation of urban sprawl. Planners at the time did not perceive it as a bad thing. For instance, the Real Estate Research Corporation (1974) defined the word ‘sprawl’ simply as ‘low-density development’. Sprawl was mainly caused by a variety of governmental structures that favored low-density zoning and the growing automobile ownership that enabled households to move to areas farther from cities (Birch, 2009, p. 317). This in turn caused remarkable challenges for transportation systems. The solution for these transportation problems in 1960s and 1970s was to construct more freeways (Freestone, 2004, p. 201).

The increased use of freeways in the States also influenced the planning of Canberra in the late 1960s. In 1966 American consultants’ study on Canberra’s transportation led to the general concept of ‘Y-plan’ (illustrated below) which favored the use of freeways and created sprawl in Australia’s capital (Freestone, 2004, p. 203).

Today, the Y-plan is perceived as problematic in terms of sustainability and public transportation. Indeed, the substantial use of cars has harmful effects on climate. Furthermore, as mentioned above, it causes sprawl which in turn causes social and economic isolation. Commuting is also very difficult: it is estimated that the peak-hour commute from Gungahlin to Civic takes more than 50 minutes. One solution introduced in The Canberra Times is the construction of light rail which would not only change the way people commute but change the way the land is used.(The Canberra Times, 16 October 2014)

References

Birch, E 2009, The Urban and Regional Planning Reader, Routledge, New York.

Freestone, R 2004, ’The Americanization of Australian Planning’, Journal of Planning History, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 187-214.

Real Estate Research Corporation 1974, The Cost of Sprawl: A Detailed Cost Analysis, US Government Printing Office, Washington.

 

The Canberra Times 2014, Light rail key to Canberra's future prosperity, 16 October 2014, viewed 1 November 2014, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/light-rail-key-to-canberras-future-prosperity-20141015-116eoi.html

Developments in Anlgo-American Planning Theory

Throughout the history, scientific practitioners have developed theories by testing hypotheses and finding empirical evidence for new theories.  These theories are in an ongoing process which includes correcting and updating knowledge when more information is gathered and more research is carried out. When new insightful information is found, scientific breakthrough is achieved.

Scientific breakthroughs can be described as ‘paradigm shifts’ that happen when a whole way of perceiving some aspect of the world is changed and substituted with a new theoretical perspective. Simple example of a paradigm shift is the shift from viewing the Earth as flat to seeing it as round. (Kuhn, 1962)

Has there been any paradigm shifts in planning theory between the years 1940 and 2000? What other developments there have been during this time period?

According to Taylor (1999), there have been three important shifts in planning theory. Firstly, planners are no longer just creative designers who view towns as physical places. Instead, planners have to consider towns as ‘systems of interrelated activities’ that are ‘in a constant flux’. That is, planners have to take social life and economic activities into account in addition to physical terms. Second, contemporary planning relays on rationality rather than creativity. The reason for this is that planning is no longer art. Instead, it is science. (Taylor, 1999, p. 332)

Finally, planners have become ‘communicators’ whereas planners used to be more like technical experts. Indeed, one of the most important tasks of planners is to identify and mediate between different interest groups and stakeholders. (Taylor, 1999, p. 335)

So, have there been any really significant ‘paradigm shifts’ in planning theory? The changes above do not represent paradigm shifts because there have not been major shifts in world view: the idea has always been to carry out high quality planning. Whether the idea is to emphasize design or social processes, the goal is still to control good development in a ‘local’ level of area. (Taylor, 1999, p. 341)

 

References

Kuhn, T 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Taylor, N 1999, ‘Anglo-American Town Planning Theory since 1945: Three Significant Developments but no Paradigm Shifts’, Planning Perspectives, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 327-345.

New Directions in Planning Theory

Last blog text discussed collaborative planning model and criticized its inability to provide clear guidelines for a communicative planning process (for instance, see Mäntysalo, 2002). Nevertheless, communicative model is one of the most significant directions in planning theory (Fainstain, 2000). According to Fainstain (2000), other major directions in planning theory are New Urbanism and The Just City.

The New Urbanism approach emphasizes physical use of land in a certain neighborhood (whereas collaborative model focuses on discussion and mediation between stakeholders). It also emphasizes a mixed use of buildings and facilities. The idea is to combine different income groups and people from different backgrounds. Unfortunately, this approach could only end up creating different forms of suburbia with same problems as today’s suburbia. (Fainstain, 2000, p. 462-463)

The Just City can be described as a capitalist approach in planning. It focuses on the outcome of the process rather than the process itself. The focus of this approach is to increase economic wealth. Furthermore, The Just City approach values democracy and diversity. On the other hand, The Just City approach is heavily based on class system and may not improve equality among communities. (Fainstain, 2000, p. 467-468)

These three types of planning theory have a social reformist outlook_ they all ‘represent a move from the purely critical perspective that characterized much theory in the 1970s and 1980s to one that once again offers a promise of a better life’ (Fainstein, 2000, p. 472). They all have similarities with each other and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive: they can be used simultaneously in order to improve the quality of planning processes and their outcomes.

References

Fainstain, S 2000, ‘New Directions in Planning Theory’, Urban Affairs Review, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 451-478.

Mäntysalo, R 2002, ‘Dilemmas in Critical Planning Theory’, The Town Planning Review, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 417-436.

Advantages and Dilemmas of Communicative Planning

It is widely noticeable that urban regions have become fragmented areas in which a variety of social and economic relations coexists, ‘linking people in a place with those in other places rather than those in the same place’ (Healey, 1996, p. 217). This results in tensions among people within area which in turn means that actions of one may deteriorate the opportunities of another (Healey, 1996, p. 217). The reason for these conflicts seems to be in traditional planning methods in which the focus is mainly on economic growth leaving environmental and cultural issues in the background (Healey, 1996, p. 218).

Healey (1996), a critical planning theorist, provides a communicative approach in urban planning as a solution to these problems. In her approach, all members of a community are ‘given voice’ in a planning process that is takes into account five aspects of participation that are:

1. The place where discussion is to take place and how community members can participate this discussion
2. Style of the discussion
3. Sorting of arguments and issues raised in the discussion
4. Creating a new discourse
5. Reaching agreement and enabling critique (Healey 1996, p. 222-223).

Healey’s (1996) approach does not offer specific guidelines how to conduct a communicative planning process: it offers a set of questions that help planners and communities to develop their own process in order to find a shared consensus in different contexts (p. 231).

Healey’s (1996) ideas are based on Jürgen Habermas’s (see Habermas, 1984; 1987) philosophical Critical Theory and his concept of ‘communicative rationality’ which can be described as ‘an unforced argumentation held in an ideal speech situation between participants where, by making claims and testing their validity in reference to shared lifewordly criteria, it is possible to achieve consensus on common issues and decisions’ (Mäntysalo, 2002, p. 418). Consequently, this kind of planning approach would lead to better neighborhoods and urban regions where common satisfaction with living environment is reached.

Habermas’s communicative rationality and incorporative planning methods such as Healey’s communicative approach have, however, met criticism of their inability to explain how they can be put into practice and how to organize and manage such planning process (Mäntysalo, 2002, p. 418). Indeed, even Healey’s (1996) communicative approach does not define certain rules or characters that should be included in communicative planning process. Therefore, examples of actual communicative planning processes are extremely rare (Mäntysalo, 2002, p. 419).

Critical planning theory and incorporating theories such as Healey’s communicative approach presented above can be perceived as tools of critical observing of traditional and current planning practices. They might have positive influence on citizens’ possibilities to have their say in planning processes. On the other hand, critical planning theory and other complementing communicative planning theories are still too inarticulate to be put into practice. As discussed in previous blog text, arenas and avenues for public participation in urban planning have increased during the last couple of decades. For instance, critical planning theorists could harness advances in technology in order to put theory into practice.

References

Habermas, J 1984, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Habermas, J 1987, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Healey, P 1996, ‘The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 217-234.

Mäntysalo, R 2002, ‘Dilemmas in Critical Planning Theory’, The Town Planning Review, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 417-436.