New Directions in Planning

If there is one thing that urban planning seems to suffer from, it is the utopian ideals that emerge with each passing decade. Although the relentless pursuit of being the renowned academic in the field has contributed greatly to the evolution of the planning role, I would argue that it isn’t all that hard to do so when dealing with a responsibility still very much in its infancy stage. Susan Fainstein attempts to tie the last 100 years of planning together and repackage it in to a theory suited towards the modern capitalist society we live in today. However, she does so with some critical analysis of other popular theories in planning.

The communicative method of planning stems from the grassroots ideals whereby the community should ultimately be the drivers of change and progression within their neighbourhood, without it, planning appears nothing more than a top down agenda of a paternalistic regime. Fainstein argues that with this model come consequences of prolonged formalities often resulting in uneducated and value laden obsessions on behalf of community members. However, as an advocate for democratic planning, Fainstein should understand that the fundamental rule of democracy is the voice of all should be heard.

The second theory that Fainstein scrutinises is new urbanism, a revival of the art of good place making promoting walk-ability and mixed use cities. Ultimately Fainstein argues that the new urbanism goal of planning for diversity is somewhat of an oxymoron, as diversity is spontaneous and evolves on its own. However, I would argue that good place making can act as a catalyst for diversity as promoting a tolerant and easy to live city would entice communities to live in an area which would invite all kinds of demographics. Fainstein also disputes that new urbanism can unintentionally result in the construction of exclusive neighbourhoods which would degrade the original ambition of creating socially inclusive societies. I believe such issues are resultant from developer ambition and land use conflicts, not so much the theory itself.

Finally, Fainstein promotes her own ideal of planning: The Just City. Very heavily inspired by the current capitalist model, the Just City promotes the laissez faire ideal of market control. Essentially, the free market can conform and construct a city to meet the needs of the residents within it. Additionally, an open market model would allow for economic growth and prosperity which, Fainstein argues, is essential for achieving successful and continual planning outcomes. However, it is important to note that Fainstein does not seem to address the ‘limits to growth’ concern instead arguing that unregulated growth is paramount to a city’s prosperity. Any economist would agree with this sentiment however, this does raise the important question of sustainability.

With growing evidence of the negative consequences of exponential economic growth on the planet, I would argue that Fainstein’s theory is contradictory to the pursuit of ecological sustainability and therefore cannot constitute as a viable principle in which to plan by. Saying this, I do think the market does have a role in achieving planning outcomes, however, handing over full control to the open market may result in greater long term harm than good.