Editorial: Negotiating Urban Space: Initiatives and Innovations in Spatial Governance
Author:
Dana Shevah
Title:
Editorial: Negotiating Urban Space: Initiatives and Innovations in Spatial Governance
ISSN Code:
2468-0648
DOI Code:
10.24306/plnxt.2017.05.001
Journal:
PlaNext
Edition:
Volume 5 | December 2017

What is so special about the pair of words 'spatial planning'? Is there any difference when we just say 'planning', without adding the word spatial? After all, planning in its essence is spatially bounded. Planning thought and action are depended upon space, namely: cities, regions, metropolitan areas, neighborhoods, shanty-towns, streets, highways, roads, forests, nature reserves, and even the sea shores. Planning as a discipline and as a profession was developed as an integral part of modernity, which has created functional systems, such as planning, that operate according to technocratic principles, i.e., efficiency, bureaucracy, hierarchal chain of authority, which is a-personal and legitimate by the laws of the states (Bauman, 2002). For many decades, planning was motivated by efficiency and actions based on factual knowledge (Friedmann & Hudson, 1974). However, reality proves that scientific and allegedly 'objective' knowledge is incapable to ensure the desired outcomes, especially when social relations are involved (Davidoff, 1965; Morris, 1996).