Challenges for Planning Theory - Essay Example

Critically discuss the view that challenges for planning theory are concerned with new and re-theorisations of uncertainty, conflict and political complexities, not much about what planning theory is about but what it can do. Introduction Planning can be defined as “the methods used by the public sector to influence the distribution of people and activities in spaces of various scales. Spatial planning includes all levels of land use planning including urban planning, regional planning, environmental planning, national spatial plans and in the European Union international levels” (Barker, 2006). Thus spatial planning is regarded as a wider approach and this report would basically focus its attention on spatial planning in urban areas and also the regulations and policies which can directly impact on urban renewal. In fact urban planning is about determining the future plans for the design and organization of urban space and activities. Basically the urban spatial planning is provided by the local government and country planning system in order to use it in an optimum manner (Valler, Wood, & North, 2000). Urban spatial planning is regarded as integration of both the land use planning and transport planning in order to develop the area economically and socially. Thus spatial planning in urban areas is not a single tool, process and activity. In fact it consists of urban renewal which would already be lacking in investment with fewer developments (Jessop, 1990). In fact it identifies strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats throughout the particular area and proposes how it can be developed with some distinctive approaches in order to address the desired objective. This report would concentrate on spatial planning in urban areas and would delineate a series of suggestions for the improvement of physical arrangements in existing urban area, thus obviating the need for over-utilizing the strategic resources (Healy, 2003). Analysis The local government’s current plan is to efficiently use lands in urban areas so that planning policy goes beyond the traditional system of land use planning and integrates development strategies and regulations as required by sustainable development and sustainable communities. Thus urban planning assumes a very complex nature against the backdrop of rising uncertainties in the external environment (Jessop, 2002). This paper will have a strategic focus on the outcomes related to planning in urban areas and the focus of attention will be on planning perspectives that have been unfolding against the backdrop of urban planning revolution in the UK in the last 50 years of the 20th century (Sanyal, 2005). It will outline in good measure the type of accommodation that enhances the land use patterns of the local government, while location, the role of planners and other variables have a very clear impact on the process of planning. A dynamic feature of this aspect of urban and country planning is the particular government’s ability or inability to add value to existing land capability and user variability. Therefore it’s the bounden duty of the urban planner to examine and adopt innovative land use techniques to achieve sustainable development including, community welfare and economic and social development (Midttun, 2005). Urban and country spatial planning can be identified as a wider spectrum of activities, processes, tools and decisions which actively impact on the urban renewal and rehabilitation. Thus it consists of a set of spatial planning activities along with different actors and agencies which would drive the growth curve of the sustainable development efforts in the area (Cochrane, 1991). In fact planning in urban and countryside locations cannot be isolated from the public policies since they are both an important instrument to identify market failures, minimize the negative externalities and maximize the positive externalities in providing public goods and infrastructure facilities to the community. Figure 1: Spatial planning strategy creation Source: www.gisdevelopment.net The economic and social benefits that are assumed to flow from positive and regenerative planning are many and they necessarily generate productive outcomes elsewhere through repetition. However the theories of modern planning aren’t of great interest as much as the purpose for which they are adopted is able to stand the test of time and quality. Independent analysts have pointed out that such benefits basically accrue to the very people who are at the other end of the planning process. Thus what is important is the fact that a greater awareness among people in the expanding urban centers about the process of development would benefit the whole community (Davies, 1985). The atitudes that surround planning in the post-Fordist liberal environment frequently emphasize practical solutions and not theoretical arguments (Taylor, 1998). Excessive urbanization and conurbization in the current decade have changed many theoretical assumptions about planning, especially in the government and local authorities’ ability to intervene in the process of planning to produce politically motivated outcomes (Campbell and Fainstein, 2003). Lack of proper specification and lack of uniformity can cause many problems in planning. Specification is a set of procedures which is important in any field. For example a planner’s specification contains detailed description about all the design and implementation processes. If the work is executed according to the specification it’s easy to evaluate cost and it can be used as a model. If the work is parallel to specification it’s easy to analyze rates and variations, especially about tendered rate etc. and following the proper specification will lead to the success of the planning activity (Greed and Reeves, 2004). Figure 1: Planning process: a dynamic representation of the general process Source: www.gisdevelopment.net A regulationist approach in change in regeneration policy A regulationist approach is characterized by a system of rules and regulations that imposes certain constraints on the spatial planning process. For instance the British regulationist approach has many elements from regional planning bodies incorporated into it though its scope and impact are less known due to the fact that the planning process in the UK has not been regulated to the extent that it should have been. Thus the governmental and local authority interventions in the spatial planning process and its directions have some deterministic regulatory parameters that are sought to be explained in academic and non-academic situations (Aglietta, 1987). In other words the situational parameters of planning and the regulationist approach have been more or less determined by the model building exigencies of time and space, thus leaving little or no freedom to the planner. This constraint has persistently impacted on any genuine efforts made by urban and country planners to integrate tractable divergences seen in the regeneration of the urban planning process (Greed, 2006). Independent spatial urban and country planning process is less likely to accommodate such divergences though the extent of the existence of convergences in the spatial model planning efforts cannot be accurately predicted. These constraints apart, post-Fordist approaches couldn’t have accomplished what some of the severe regulationist approaches would have successfully accomplished (Jessop, 1997). This is despite the fact that the existing regulationist approaches are seemingly unable to impress urban planners on the need for seamless integration of rules and regulations into the architectural environment that presumably does not help the spatial urban and country planning process to overcome exogenous hindrances. For example when Margret Thatcher was succeeded by John major as the British prime minister, the latter had to adopt a less articulate regulationist approach in urban spatial planning, irrespective of the successive Conservative Governments’ persistent efforts to re-demarcate the lines of spatial urban planning process against regulationist tendencies (De Roo, and Silva, 2010). Roads should be merged and the capacity should be expanded. Another problem associated with the infrastructure development is that the environmental problems faced by the community due to the unsystematic constructions and drainage system. The design and planning of infrastructure has received much less attention under modern urban planning. It always resulted in a mono disciplinary approach (Allmendiger and Tewdwr-Jones, 2002). Thus the full focus is on the technical viability of the proposed infrastructure projects. These technical aspects are related to the physical elements of the infrastructure. Planning dynamics such as methods and models can be devised to reduce the congestion in towns with increasing technical engineering problem solving applying analytical tools. It is illustrated by the regular use of multi criteria evaluation tools, cost benefit analyses, linear project appraisal and programming models, since these technical methods are adopted by professionals on optimizing planning and design within the limited frame work of infrastructure developments. This is an efficient frame work regarding infrastructure development because through these methods the construction and infrastructure projects can be delivered on time (Healy, 2007). The correlation between the degree of independence among professional planners and the different levels and the degrees of success of planning process can be attributed to the fact that planning has become more region centric with particular regions showing a tendency to draw on external influences. There are many stakeholders involved in the planning process and these stakeholders such as the city dwellers, citizens, taxpayers, ratepayers, city councilors, planners, administrators and so on have an equal stake in the outcomes of the planning process. While planning process tends to be qualitatively assessed in the light of its overall impact on the country, there is a greater degree of primacy and immediacy attached to the same outcomes by a desire to eliminate delays (Matthews and Satsangi, 2007). Thus urban spatial planning has acquired another dimension by way of regeneration/renewal and heterogeneity of aspectual process. When planning process is subject to economic and social regeneration in space and time, planning becomes a multi-faceted task in the planning room and implementation stage. The variances and co-variances produced by such planning dynamics tend to be interpreted in the transformation phase as the ultimate outcomes. There are certain assumptions that are made with planning analysis. With those assumptions the analyst should think or decide how far the results will agree with the actual conditions in a variety of situations and contexts (Evans, 2003). Planning process involves both government and local authorities. However it may not be within the full control of the government. In this case there can be another relationship between the final outcome and the percentage of involvement that each party, such as government, semi government bodies and private organizations, has. This will vary from project to project, but it’s possible to take this correlation test for two or three projects. This is also falls into partial correlation analysis in which independent variable is the degree of success of the project and dependant variables are government involvement percentage, semi government involvement percentage and private involvement percentage (Friedman, 2003).If the correlation coefficient between public involvements and the success is positive it means both are moving to the same direction. Participation of public sector increases the success of the project indicate positive correlation. If that value is negative it implies the higher involvement of public construction services reduces the success of the project like that same indication for other two sectors. Since urban renewal poses problems to local authorities despite the apparent advantages associated with regulationist approach in spatial urban and country planning, there would be innumerable opportunities for the people in the UK cities (Eisenschitz, & Gough, 1998). Also, regeneration policy would provide opportunity for unskilled and low-skilled people to be more meaningfully employed. The urban and country planning process will lead to the development of social and economic infrastructure in the area. This in turn will increase local authorities’ revenue. Thus the housing market, transnational corporations and technologies will prosper, and more people will come and settle in the area. However the aesthetics of the urban space could be improved by setting up of urban spatial planning projects. Preserving the country side should be of high priority. Due to the increase of traffic and the development of commercial infrastructure such as airports and offices there would be sound and air pollution. These waste products could flow to the rivers and canals in the vicinity thus giving rise to water pollution. Certain species of birds and animals endemic to this area could be driven away as a result of acquiring land to set up the urban renewal projects. This could lead to protests from environmentalists (Peck, 2000). One of the major economic effects of the proposed urban renewal would be on the local shopping centers in the city. The first major issue of an out-of-town retail development is the loss of business by the local shopkeepers. Acquisition of land and the demolition of existing buildings would mean that the local council would have to pay compensation to the property owners and relocate them. The greatest strength of the regulationist approach in planning lies in its degree of predictability associated with regional and sub regional systems of regulatory governance (Goodwin, Duncan, & Halford, 1993). For example at the county level the regulationist approaches have successfully been implemented through a system of cross functional integration. On the other hand its greatest weakness lies in the fact that the process lacks dynamism and therefore the associated benefits fail to percolate down to the bottom layers of the system. In other words regulationist rigidities in the spatial planning system within the UK have compelled urban planning authorities to abandon some of the most practical and revolutionary aspects of the urban planning adopted elsewhere, especially in North America (Agger and Lofgren, 2008). Fordism, Post-fordism & urban spatial planning Fordism has variously been interpreted as a multi dimensional phenomenon in equally diverse and social settings. For instance its current evolutionary phase is centered on both the physical and aesthetic dimensions of regeneration of urban centers. Its economic aspectual framework of analysis is basically determined by such fast evolving changes including those directly related to economic booms (Goodwin, & Painter, 1996). Given a scenario of highly articulate economic strategy and policy formulation in both the national economy and private enterprise, planning efforts in urban settings tend to be treated with policy dichotomy by the central government, local authorities and private enterprise (Collar, 2001). The individualistic nature of the evolving phenomenon has been characterized by a sense of urgency on the part of the central government, a sense of regeneration on the part of local authorities and a sense of fast evolving strategic compulsion on the part of private enterprise. Fordism first acquired a larger degree of significance when its theoretical bases were nuanced with the economic and social regenerative principles that bordered on an otherwise development oriented progressive concern for changes in the sphere of spatial planning and economic welfare. The social dimension was equally influenced by the planning administrator’s desire to keep up with parallel changes that were fast taking place elsewhere in urban city centers across the globe. Fordism related social phenomena can also be seen in respect of a tendency on the part of both the planner and the main stakeholder to move away from rural city centers to urban locations where regeneration policy is much stronger than anywhere else (Gough, & Eisenschitz, 1996). The social evolutionary process concerning such mobility has invariably been the subject of neoclassical social and economic theorists. It is this particular development that has led to the current perception of ideology based spatial planning and urban regeneration. Thus Fordism led to the creation of large houses as well as factories in the cities with societal biases and prejudices. Spatial urban planning and selectivity received a further boost during the tenures of the former British Prime Minister, Margret Thatcher. Though agency related dialectics weren’t specifically articulated by city and town planners, its influence could be noticed during Thatcher’s era to a greater extent in the backdrop of evolving monetarist economic influences. As much as Thatcher believed in Regan’s supply side approach, she thought that social transformation was possible through an economic revolution based on the same regenerative principle of empowering the worker by giving him part of the ownership of the company in which he worked. However the reality was not to be completed until spatial planning activity in the urban areas of England was treated with the same respect that her monetarist policies received (Goodwin, & Painter, 1997). During the 1980’s post Fordism acquired a still larger degree of significance and its relevance for spatial urban planning for the first time began to be felt across fast developing urban centers of the world. For instance within the UK, cities like London, Birmingham, Newcastle assiduously adopted spatial planning and regeneration policies in conformance with what was then considered to be the greatest influence of Post-Fordism against the backdrop of an otherwise snail-paced process of urban regeneration. Political and economic conflicts arose within the planning environment to such an extent that both the central government and the local authorities on the one hand and other stakeholders on the other were entangled in a protracted battle for supremacy. The evolution from Fordism to post-Fordism had a direct impact on the spatial planning and regeneration policies. Thus in the periods of Fordism, raw materials and labor were regarded as the main factors which determined the location of the factory. In the times of post Fordism, accessibility was regarded as the main location factor (Hay, 1995). Therefore it required good infrastructural facilities in the cities and thus the gravitational pull was towards the periphery of the city rather than the city centre. In this scenario agglomerations became a new phenomenon. The main elements or otherwise pillars of post-Fordism can be identified as diversity, integration, flexibility, dispersal, decentralization and optimalism. However post-Fordism increasingly merged with the diversity and the flexibility in the changing society. Post-Fordism is characterized by some of the attributes including emerging technologies, types of consumers with emphasis on social class, increase in the service industries and white collar workers, late marriage among women, increasing number of women in the workforce and financial market globalization. Therefore Fordism and post-Fordism have had a direct impact on urban spatial planning and development of the cities. In fact these phenomena impacted on urban space in both the ways, physical and social (Stoker, 1991). Urban planning in the UK has led to many positive developments in economic welfare of the society. Especially the urban planning process has directly impacted on the quality of the housing market with the efficacious use of the urban space. Also it may have economic, social and cultural benefits with regard to the global competitiveness of urban cities. Thus the policies and regulations related to the urban renewal have been changed under different circumstances and urban renewal process has been evolving with the spurt of growth in urban planning parameters that led to demolishing the existing houses, factories roads and replacing them with new housing projects, freeways, expressways and space transport networks (Burr, 1995). Spatial planning has been subject to a series of changes and its process of transformation has come from a number of sources. For example regulationist approaches have brought about changes in the regeneration policies and environments. All these changes are based on the fast evolving spatial planning environment. Governments and local authorities have played a crucial role in determining policy direction of spatial planning. To such an extent that any regulationist approach tends to influence not only the decision making approaches but also the policy implementation process. Conclusion Spatial planning and selectivity in urban planning have brought about not only assessable changes but also un-assessable outcomes such as social and economic uncertainties are based on both theoretical and conceptual framework of analysis. The regulationist approach has heavily impacted on spatial planning systems to such an extent that planning and implementation rigidities have ham herd the process of adaptation and flexibility in conformance with other fast developing spatial planning processes elsewhere. However it must be noted that within the UK context the government and local authorities especially in the times of Margret Thatcher have infused an ideological variance to the spatial planning process. This ideological shift has both a social and an economic influence on the ultimate outcomes. For example the current debate on the regeneration policy in urban centers has been focused on setting a trend in spatial urban planning efforts. To what extent such efforts could succeed would depend on the current process of transformation from rigid planning to lea regulated environments of strategy formulation and implementation. Political will and expediency were seen to be on the wax when with the dawn of the 1970’s decade post-modernism was heralded in as the utmost in every sphere of public policy making. Urban and country planning was to receive a new impetus in Britain and elsewhere with the rejuvenation of the construction industry. Housing and infrastructure building efforts received a vigorous backing from both the political establishment and citizenry’s non-political bodies of interest representation. The uncertainty that marred such progressive tendencies and pro-planning activism was all the more characteristic of the trend that intermittently prevailed during the few decades after the WW II. REFERENCES 1) Agger, A and Lofgren, K. (2008). Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes. Planning Theory. Vol 7(2), pp145-164. 2) Aglietta, M 1987, A Theory of Capitalist Regulation, Verso, London, 3) Allmendiger, P and Tewdwr-Jones. (2002), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, London: Routledge Publications. 4) Barker, K 2006, Barker Review of Land Use Planning, Stationery Office Books, Scotland. 5) Burr, V. (1995), An introduction to social construction, London: Routeledge publications. 6) Campbell, S and Fainstein, S. (2003), Readings in Planning Theory (Studies in Urban and Social Change), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publications. 7) Cochrane, A 1991, ‘The changing state of local government: restructuring for the 1990s, Public Administration, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 281-302. 8) Collar N.A. (2001), Planning and Human Rights, Edinburgh: Green publications. 9) Davies, R.L. (1985), Retail Planning Policies in Western Europe, l: Routledge Publications. 10) De Roo, G and Silva, E.A. (2010), A planners encounter with complexity, England: Ashgate Publications 11) Eisenschitz, A & Gough, J 1998, ‘Theorising the state in local economic governance’, Regional Studies, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 759-768. 12) Evans A.W. (2003). Shouting Very Loudly – Economics, Planning and Politics. Town Planning Review. 74 (2), pp195-212. 13) Friedman, J. (2003). Why do planning theory. Planning Theory. Vol 1(2), pp.7-10. 14) Goodwin, M & Painter, J 1996, ‘Local governance, the crises of Fordism and the changing geographies of regulation’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 21, pp. 635-648. 15) Goodwin, M & Painter, J 1997, ‘Concrete Research, Urban Regimes, and Regulation Theory’ in M. Lauria (ed) Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy, Sage, London, pp.13-29. 16) Goodwin, M, Duncan, S & Halford, S 1993, Regulation theory, the local state and the transition of urban politics, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 11, pp. 67-68. 17) Gough,J & Eisenschitz, A 1996, ‘The construction of mainstream local economic initiatives: Mobility, socialisation and class relations”, Economic Geography, vol. 72, no. 2, pp 178-195. 18) Greed C. (2006). Institutional and Conceptual Barriers to the Adoption of Gender Mainstreaming Within Spatial Planning Departments in England. Planning Theory and Practice. Vol. 7(2), pp. 179-197. 19) Greed, C. and Reeves, D. (2004). Mainstreaming equality into strategic spatial policy making: are town planners losing sight of gender. Construction Management and Economics. Vol.23, pp. 1059-1070. 20) Hay, C 1995, ‘Re-stating the problem of regulation and re-regulating the local state’, Economy and Society, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 387-407. 21) Healy, P. (2003). “Collaborative planning in perspective”. in Planning Theory . Vol. 2 (2), pp101-123. 22) Healy, P. (2007), Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational planning for our cities, New York: Routeledge publications. 23) Jessop, B 1997, ‘A neo-Gramscian approach to the regulation of urban regimes’, Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory, pp. 51–73. 24) Jessop, B 2002, The Future of the Capitalist State Cambridge. Polity Press, Stafford. 25) Jessop,B 1990, ‘Regulation theories in retrospect and prospect’, Economy and Society, vol. 19, pp. 153–216. 26) Matthews, P and Satsangi,M.(2007). Planners, Developers and Power: A critical discourse analysis of the redevelopment of Leith Docks, Scotland. Planning, Practice and Research. Vol 22, No.4, pp495-511. 27) Midttun, A 2005, ‘Realigning business, government and civil society: Emerging embedded relational governance beyond the (neo) liberal and welfare state models’, Corporate Governance, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 159-174. 28) Peck, J 2000, Doing regulation’ Ch.4 in G.Clark, M.Feldman, M.Gertler The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 29) Sanyal B. (2005). Planning as anticipation of resistance. Planning Theory. Vol.4, No3, pp225-245. 30) Stoker, G 1991, Regulation theory, local government and the transition from Fordism in Challenges to Local Government, Sage, London. 31) Taylor, N. (1998), Urban Planning Theory since 1945, London: Sage Publications. 32) Valler, D, Wood, A & North, P 2000, ‘Local governance and local business interests: A critical review’, Progress in Human Geography, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 409-428. 33. Planning process diagram retrieved from www.gisdevelopment.net on November 27, 2010. 34. Spatial planning strategy creation diagram retrieved from www.gisdevelopment.net on November 27, 2010. Read More