Friday, October 31, 2014

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment