FUNDAMENTALS OF PLANNING THEORY

218
Willoughby Zimunya

Course description

ASSIGNMENTS

 

ASSIGNMENT 1

 

Discuss the evolution and the main features of the rational model of planning. (50 marks)

 

 Due date: 17 March, 2017.

 

ASSIGNMENT 2:

 

Modern planning needs to deal with heterogeneous issues affecting society. Highlight  five issues that are affecting society and discuss how planning can contribute to solving these issues . (50 marks)

 

Due date: 12 April, 2017.

 

Instructions for writing assignments:

a)            Font type – Times New Roman

b)            Line spacing – 1.5

c)            Font size – 12 points

All assignments to be typed and submitted as printed copies on or before the due date. Students will be penalised for late submission of work.

 

Description

PURPOSE OF COURSE

 

This course outlines the fundamentals and principles of planning theory by tracing the origins and evolution of planning theory. It investigates how planning approaches have emerged over time and the new directions in planning and its theory. Special reference will be paid to the manner in which planning theory has influenced the technical capacities of planners working in different work stations (the state and non-state realms). 

Qualifications and Goals

PURPOSE OF COURSE

 

This course outlines the fundamentals and principles of planning theory by tracing the origins and evolution of planning theory. It investigates how planning approaches have emerged over time and the new directions in planning and its theory. Special reference will be paid to the manner in which planning theory has influenced the technical capacities of planners working in different work stations (the state and non-state realms). 

Course content

COURSE CONTENT

 

SECTION 1: DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

  • Planning
  • Theory
  • Paradigm
  • Model
  • Blue Print
  • Utilitarianism
  • Rationality
  • The positive and normative approaches to planning

 

SECTION 2: TRADITIONS OF PLANNING

  • Social reform
  • Policy analysis
  • Social learning
  • Social Mobilization

 

SECTION 3:  PLANNING THEORIES

  • Theories of Planning
  • Theories in Planning
  • Theories for Planning
  • Procedural-Substantive debate

 

SECTION 4: DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING INTERFACE: A CHANGING THEORY?

  • Theories of Development
  • Spatial planning theories and concepts
  • Urban form and design
  • Transport
  • Land Use Planning
  • Location,
  • What should the planner know?

 

 

 

SECTION 5: ROLES OF PLANNERS

  • The matrix of roles of a planner
  • Planning as a technical endeavor
  • The Planning Environment

 

SECTION 6: NEW DIRECTIONS IN PLANNING: A CHANGING THEORY?

  • Challenges in Today’s World
  • Is Planning Theory changing?

Albrechts, L. (2006). Bridge the gap: From spatial planning to strategic projects. European Planning Studies, 14 (10), 1487-1500.

Allmendinger, P. (2002). Planning theory. New York: Palgrave.

Boissevain, J. (1974). Friends of friends: Networks, manipulators and coalitions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bruton, M. J. (1974). The spirit and purpose of planning. London: Hutchinson.

 

Carley M (1980) Rational Techniques in Policy Analysis. Gower

 

Campbell, H. (2006). Just planning: The art of situated ethical judgement. Journal of

Planning Education and Research, 26 (1), 92-106.

Campbell, H. & Marshall, R. (2002). Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory, 1 (2), 163-187.

Commission of the European Communities. (1990). Green paper on the urban environment. Brussels: CEC.

Commission of the European Communities. (1999). The European spatial development

perspective. Luxembourg: OOPEC, CEC.

European Conference of Ministers responsible for regional planning. (2000). Guiding principles for the sustainable development of the European continent. Hanover: CEMAT.

Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31 (4), 331-338.

Davies, J. G. (1974). The evangelistic bureaucrat. London: Tavistock.

Davy, B. (2008). Plan it without a condom! Planning Theory, 7 (3), 301-317.

Dear, M. J. (2000). The postmodern urban condition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Department for Communities and Local Government. (2005). Planning policy statement 1: Delivering sustainable development. London: DCLG, TSO.

Department for Communities and Local Government & Royal Town Planning Institute.

(2007). Planning together: Local strategic partnerships and spatial planning. Practical guide.London: DCLG & RTPI.

Department for Transport. (2004). The future of transport: A network for 2030. London: Department for Transport.

Dreyfus, S. E. & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Berkeley: California University Berkeley Operations Research Center.

Fainstein, S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35 (4), 451-478.

A. Ferreira, O. Sykes & P. Batey: Planning Theory or Planning Theories? The Hydra Model and its Implications for Planning Education. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 2, December 2009

Fainstein, S. (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25 (2), 121-130.

Faludi, A. (1982). Three paradigms of planning theory. In: Healey, P., McDougall, G. &

Thomas, M. J. (Eds.). Planning theory: Prospects for the 1980s. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 81-101.

Faludi, A. (2000). The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice & Research, 15 (4), 299-318.

Fincher, R. & Iveson, K. (2008). Planning and diversity in the city: Redistribution, recognition and encounter. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. & Richardson, T. (2002). Planning and Foucault: In search of the dark side of planning theory. In: Allmendinger, P. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (Eds.). Planning futures: New directions for planning theory. London: Routledge, pp. 44-62.

Forester, J. (1999). Reflections on the future understanding of planning practice. International Planning Studies, 4 (2), 175-193.

Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Friedmann, J. (1998). Planning theory revisited. European Planning Studies, 6 (3), 245-253.

Friend, J. K. & Hickling, A. (1987). Planning under pressure: The strategic choice approach. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. London: Penguin Books.

Gellner, E. (1985). Relativism and the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Hall, P. (1988). Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the Twentieth Century. London: Blackwell.

Hanson, S. (2006). Imagine. Journal of Transport Geography, 14 (3), 232-233.

Healey, P. (1990). Planning through debate. Proceedings of the 1990 Conference on

Planning theory: Prospects for the 1990s held at the Oxford Polytechnic. Oxford, Oxford Polytechnic.

Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. 2nd ed.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. London: Routledge.

A. Ferreira, O. Sykes & P. Batey: Planning Theory or Planning Theories? The Hydra Model and Its Implications for Planning Education. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 2, December 2009

Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hoch, C. (2006). Emotions and planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 7 (4), 367–382.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kunzmann, K. R. (2004). Unconditional surrender: The gradual demise of European diversity in planning: URL: http://www.planum.net/topics/documents/kunzmann_epp_01.pdf

Lakatos, I. (1989). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Philosophical

Papers, 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levy , J.M. (1997) Contemporary Urban Planning, Prentice Hall

Lewis, J., & Melville, B. (1978). The politics of epistemology in regional science. In: Batey, P.

W. J. (Ed.). Theory and method in urban and regional analysis. London: Pion, pp. 82-100.

Lynch, K. & Rodwin, L. (1958). A theory of urban form. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 24 (4), 201-214.

Monk, J. & Hanson, S. (1982). On not excluding half of the human in human geography. The Professional Geographer, 34 (1), 11-23.

Morphet, J. (2005). A meta-narrative of planning reform. Town Planning Review, 76 (4), iv-ix.

Muller, J. (1998). Paradigms and planning practice: Conceptual and contextual considerations. International Planning Studies, 3 (3), 287-302.

Ortúzar, J. D. & Willumsen, L. G. (2001). Modelling transport. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Salet, W. & Faludi, A. (2000). The revival of strategic planning. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Stifte, B. & Mukhopadhyay, C. (2007). Thoughts on Anglo-American hegemony in planning scholarship: Do we read each other‘s work? Town Planning Review, 78 (5), 545-572.

Sykes, O. & Motte, A. (2007). Examining the relationship between transnational and national spatial planning: French and British planning and the European Spatial Development

Perspective. In: Booth, P., Breuillard, M., Fraser, C. & Paris, D. (Eds.). Spatial planning systems of Britain and France: A comparative analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 99-118.

Talen, E. & Ellis, C. (2002). Beyond relativism: Reclaiming the search for good city form. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22 (1), 36-49.

Taylor, N (1998) Urban Planning Theory . Sage Publications

Tewdwr-Jones, M. & Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A, 30 (11), 1975-1989.


Yiftachel, O. (2006). Re-engaging planning theory: Towards 'south-eastern' perspectives.Planning Theory, 5 (3), 211-222.

 

Online Journals and Books:

 The UZ website has a vast pool of texts and references online. Please make use of these important resources.

 

Teaching-training activities

COURSE DELIVERY

a)    Lectures.

b)    Students will also be organized in groups then present seminars (topics to be advised) on various elements covered in the course. After the class presentations students are expected to hand in a write up of their work

Support

PROJECTOR

LECTURES

Human and Physical Resources

PROJECTOR

LECTURER

 

Methods of evaluation

COURSE DELIVERY

a)    Lectures.

b)    Students will also be organized in groups then present seminars (topics to be advised) on various elements covered in the course. After the class presentations students are expected to hand in a write up of their work


Manager(s) for 218 : Willoughby Zimunya
Administrator for TSIME Online : Administrator
Phone : 18008
Powered by Claroline © 2001 - 2013