Initiatives and innovations in spatial governance
Downloads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24306/plnxt.2017.05.001Abstract
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).
Published
Issue
Section
References
Allmendinger, P. & Haughton, G. (2010). Spatial Planning, Devolution, and New Planning Spaces. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 28(5): 803-818.
Anhorn, M. (2006). Spirituality and Planning in a Diverse World. Planning Theory and Practice. 7(1): 68-80.
Bauman, Z. (2002). Globalization: The Human Consequences. New-York: Columbia University Press.
Bertolini, L. (2009). Interface: The Dream of Planning. Planning Theory and Practice. 10(3): 309-313.
Boelens, L. (2010). Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory: Outlines for an Actor-Relational Approach in Planning. Planning Theory. 9(1): 28-62.
Bonet I Martí, J. (2012). El territorio como espacio de radicalización democrática. Una aproximación crítica a los procesos de participación ciudadana en las políticas urbanas de Madrid y Barcelona. Atheneas Digital (12/1): pp. 15-28.
Bianchini, F. & Ghilardi, S. (1997). Culture and Neighborhoods: A Comparative Report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Campbell, H. (2012). Planning to Change the World: Between Knowledge and Action Lies Synthesis. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 32(2): 135-146.
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 15:1-16.
Ethington, P.J. (2007). Placing the Past: ‘Groundwork’ for a Spatial Theory of History. Rethinking History. 11(4): 465-493.
Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The just city. Cornell University Press.
Fenster, T. & Yacobi, H. (2005). Whose City is it? On Urban Planning and Local Knowledge in Globalizing Tel-Aviv-Jaffa. Planning Theory and Practice. 6(2): 191-211.
Fincher, R. & Jacobs, J.M. (1998). Cities of Difference. New-York and London: Guilford Press. Friedmann, J. & Hudson, B. (1974). Knowledge and Action: A Guide to Planning Theory. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 40(1): 2-16.
Gualini, E. (2006). The rescaling of governance in Europe: New spatial and institutional rationales. European Planning Studies. 14(7): 881-904.
Healey, P. (1998). Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning.
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 30(9): 1531-1546.
Healey, P. (1999). Institutionalist Analysis, Communicative Planning and Shaping Places. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 19(2): 111-121.
Hillier, J. (2008). Plan(e) Speaking: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning. Planning Theory. 7(1): 24-50.
Huxley, M. (2002). Governmentality, Gender, Planning: A Foucauldian Perspective. In: Allmendinger, P. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (Eds.). Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory. Pp. 136-153.
Marsh, J. (Performer). (2015, October 10). Citizen-Driven Innovation. Urban Thinker Campus: City as a Service, Palermo, Sicily, Italy. Retrieved 01 25, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0KiaLhF7QU
Morris, E. (1996). Community in Theory and Practice: A Framework for Intellectual Renewal. Journal of Planning Literature. 11(1): 127-150.
Nyseth, T., Pløger, J., & Holm, T. (2010). Planning beyond the horizon: The Tromsø experiment. Planning Theory. 9(3), 223-247.
Olesen, K. (2012). Soft Spaces as Vehicles for Neoliberal Transformations of Strategic Spatial Planning?. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 30(5): 910-923.
Qadeer, M.A. (1997). Pluralistic Planning for Multicultural Cities: the Canadian Practice. Journal of the American Planning Association. 63(4): 481-494.
Sandercock, L. (2003). Cosmopolis 2: Mongrel Cities. New York: Continuum.
Sandercock, L. (2004a). Planning and indigenous communities. Planning Theory and Practice. 5(1): 95-96.
Sandercock, L. (2004b). Towards a planning imagination for the 21st century. Journal of the American Planning Association. 70(2): 133-141.
Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2010). Digital ethnography as planning praxis: An experiment with film as social research, community engagement and policy dialogue. Planning Theory and Practice. 11(1): 23-45.
Shevah, D., & Kallus, R. (2016). Past Forward: Planning in the Light of Historical Knowledge. Journal of Planning History. 15(1): 29-45.
Soja, E. W. (1999). In different spaces: The cultural turn in urban and regional political economy. European Planning Studies. 7(1): 65-75.
Tonkiss, F. (2013). Austerity urbanism and the makeshift city. City. 17(3): 312-324.
Upton, R. (2005). A Place for Values. Planning Theory and Practice. 6(2): 143-146.
Watson, V. (2002). Do we learn from planning practice? The contribution of the practice movement to planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 22(2): 178-187.
Watson, V. (2006). Deep Difference: Diversity, Planning and Ethics. Planning Theory. 5(1): 31-50.
