Theoretical Background
The aim of this section is to illustrate a brief theoretical orientation. First, it will explain how a communicative planning approach is a relevant lens through which to view the case. After that, power relations between different stakeholders will be introduced and linked to the communicative planning theory.
After the radical change in planning literature and moving from the rationalistic approach led by planners towards the communicative approach, planning has evolved to a mutual learning and knowledge creation process between planners and citizens. Indeed, collaborative planning arose in response to the rational planning that ruled the second half of the 20th century. It evolved combined with the concepts of post-modernism and post-structuralism that were dominating other academic disciplines at the time.
Collaborative planning theory, in fact, has dealt with acknowledging and giving voice to difference and discussing issues in the public realm. Also, this concept goes by many names, including ‘deliberative planning’, ‘inclusionary argumentation’, ‘participatory democracy’, and ‘discursive democracy’. Healy (1996) describes inclusionary argumentation as “public reasoning which accepts the contributions of all members of a political community and recognizes the range of ways they have of knowing, valuing and giving meaning.” Moreover, Healy (ibid) stated that inclusionary argumentation, as the ideal planning process, is “a practice that underpins conceptions of what is being called participatory democracy.”
Healy, also, concludes that collaborative planning is a way to achieve consensus in a democratic society which respects differences and, which can live sustainably within its economic and soc...
... middle of paper ...
..., P (1998) Deconstructing communicative rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A 1998, volume 30, pages 1975-1989.
Velasquez, J. (2005) Anchorage and Dialogue – Tensions betweens Planning and Local Democracy. Stockholm University English Summary pp 209-222
Watson, V. (2002) Do we learn from planning practice? The contribution to the practice movement to planning Theory, Journal of Planning Education and Research 22:178-187
Watson, V (2003) Conflicting Rationalities: Implications for Planning Theory and
Ethics, Journal of Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 4, No. 4, December 2003. p. 395–407.
Wildavsky, A. (1973) If Planning is Everything, Maybe it’s Nothing. Policy Science 4:127-153.
Tett, A. , & Jeanne M. Wolfe. (1991) Discourse Analysis and City Plans, Journal of Planning Education and Research 10(3):195-200
The above article is closely tied to two concepts in the domain of planning and
Webber, M. M. (1973). Comprehensive planning and social responsibility: Toward an AIP consensus on the profession's roles and purposes. Journal of the American Institute of Planning, 232-241.
Governance and a concept of a sort of pragmatism were at the core of the New Labour ethos when it arrived to power in 1997. They were promoting an outcome-oriented approach rather than a more ideological one (Temple, 2000). The New Labour approach to planning contrasted with the view of the New Right which preceded it by adopting a much more positive approach to planning (Rydin, 2013,
One of the problems today is that America’s distrust for their leaders because they view them as ineffectual and removed. There is a need in America to democratize the public planning process and decision-making process. Many times projects, developments, and policy decisions are made without significant public input and participation. This often leads to m...
Miller, Byron. 1992. “Collective Action and Rational Choice: Place, Community, and the Limits to Individual Self-Interest.” Economic Geography 68:1, 22-42
J B Harley, 1989, Deconstructing The Map, Ann Arbor, Michigan: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library.
The successful use of team practice aims to better serve respected stakeholders. In urban planning, the unity and cohesiveness of a finished work signifies professionalism and clarity, which can only be arrived from a great team. In order to achieve solidarity, good decision making tactics must be enforced. Decision making involves making a logical choice influenced by, and not limited to, facts and information, time, and emotions. These factors may be a sole factor or combined together. Thus, decision making aims to solve a problem. In regards to urban planning, decision making has great influence on the overall success or failure of a plan. This plan may involve key stakeholders or the public, regardless of what party is at stake, decision making must be based on rationality. This paper will examine four decision making practices: (1) decision by authority, (2) decision by majority vote/rule, (3) decision by averaging opinions, and (4) decision by consensus.
Peter J. Larkham, “Planning the twentieth-century city: the advanced capitalist world [book review]”, Planning Perspectives. V. 18, N. 8 (Apr 2003), 245.
As a minor purpose we provide a Theoretical framework to think deeply about political and social praxis. This is so as a matter of make them feasible answers to problems that have been appearing recently.
New Urbanism, a burgeoning genre of architecture and city planning, is a movement that has come about only in the past decade. This movement is a response to the proliferation of conventional suburban development (CSD), the most popular form of suburban expansion that has taken place since World War II. Wrote Robert Steuteville, "Lacking a town center or pedestrian scale, CSD spreads out to consume large areas of countryside even as population grows relatively slowly. Automobile use per capita has soared, because a motor vehicle is required for nearly all human transportation"1. New Urbanism, therefore, represents the converse of this planning ideology. It stresses traditional planning, including multi-purpose zoning, accessible public space, narrow street grids for easy pedestrian usage and better placement of community buildings. Only a few hundred American communities are utilizing this method of planning, but the impact is quickly growing in an infant field dominated by a few influential architects and engineers.
This procedure has three primary aspects, that it be free, that it be reasoned and finally, that we reach a consensus. We need to be able to decide on an agenda, propose alternate solutions to problems within the agenda, support those solutions with reason, and then conclude by settling on the alternative. Outcomes are democratically legitimate only if they are free, reasoned and consensual. This is the principle captured by an ideal deliberative procedure.
Providing solutions for the good city pose questions such as: good for whom? what is good? etc. These questions prompt that good and city are two words that form more questions than answers. In these nebula of questions urban design plays an important role because its nature is in the urban and therefore in the city. As Madanipour points out, urban design occupies a potentially strategic place in shaping the city of the future (Madanipour, 2006).
Schonwandt, Walter L. 2008. Planning in Crisis? Theoretical Orientations for Architecture and Planning. Ashgate Publishing: Burlington, VT. pp. 10
Consulting the community will be a two way interaction where the intentions are to make the people well informed and understand about the development plan. Other than that, is to receive feedback and getting rough ideas on what the thing that the community really want to see in their neighbourhood. This stage is also important in advising the people that their input will influenced the decision making process at the end. Rather than the usual meeting where everyone sit behind the tab...
With the amplified volume of construction, real estate development grew in scale and began to be planned more realistically. Upper-class and middle-class villages and state housing projects indicated recognition of the need for planned communities (Tajar,