Waikato Home
ENVP410-17B (HAM)
Planning Theory
20 Points
Staff
Convenor(s)
|
Iain White
9166
HI.2.01
To be advised
iain.white@waikato.ac.nz
|
|
Librarian(s)
You can contact staff by:
- Calling +64 7 838 4466 select option 1, then enter the extension.
-
Extensions starting with 4, 5 or 9 can also be direct dialled:
- For extensions starting with 4: dial +64 7 838 extension.
- For extensions starting with 5: dial +64 7 858 extension.
- For extensions starting with 9: dial +64 7 837 extension.
Paper Description
This paper aims to provide you with an understanding of the key themes and perspectives which have informed and guided planning practice, and which have in turn sought to understand and to critically evaluate that practice. You will be encouraged to develop a critical awareness of the power of ideas and of the ways in which these ideas and values explicitly and implicitly influence and determine real world outcomes. Planning is, at its very heart, a political process, informed by the knowledge and technical skills of the planning profession. This paper will introduce you to a range of ideas and theories, some useful, some less so; some sympathetic to your existing view of the world, others, again, less so. However, it is in the nature of intellectual enquiry that you seek to understand, even if you are in fundamental disagreement. As Karl Popper pointed out some half century ago, if you wish your own case to be successful in any argument, you need to fully understand and strengthen the case of your opponent. Only then can you judge your own position to be valid and your argument to be worthy of wider acceptance.
Paper Structure
This paper consists of a lecture series, complemented by seminars. Each week students will spend part of the time having a lecture and partly in a class discussion. You will be expected to actively participate in the seminar discussions which are structured around one key reading.
Learning Outcomes
Students who successfully complete the course should be able to:
Assessment
Assessment Components
The internal assessment/exam ratio (as stated in the University Calendar) is 1:0. There is no final exam.
Required and Recommended Readings
Required Readings
You will be given a reading on moodle each week. You will be expected to read it in time for the seminar the following week, where we will discuss it as a class
Recommended Readings
KEY REFERENCES
Please note – this is not an exhaustive list of references. Please use the University search engine to access further papers and, particularly, books.
Agyeman, J, Bullard, B & Evans, B &(2003) Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World, MIT Press, Boston
Allmendinger P 2002 Towards a Post-Positivist Typology of Planning Theory Planning Theory; 1; 77
Alexander ER 1997 “A mile or a millimeter? Measuring the planning theory‑practice gap”.Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, Vol.24, No.1, pp.3‑6
Allen J and Pryke M 1994 The production of service space, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 12: 453-475
Allmendinger P 2001 Planning in Postmodern Times, London: Routledge
Allmendinger P &Tewdwr-Jones 2002 (eds) Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, London: Routledge
Bennett C 2002 Everyday Ethics for Practising Planners, American Planning Association
Brooks MP 2002 Planning Theory for Practitioners, Washington, DC: Planners Press, American Planning Association
Campbell H 2010 'Searching for the Just City: Debates in Urban Theory and Practice', Planning Theory & Practice, 11: 2, 301- 302
Campbell H & Marshall R 1999 “Ethical Frameworks and Planning Theory”, International Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchVol 23 No. 3, 464-478
Chadwick G 1971 Systems View of Planning: Towards a Theory of the Urban Regional Planning Process, London: Elsevier
Campbell S &Fainstein S (eds) 2003 (2nd ed) Readings in Planning Theory, Oxford: Blackwell (1st edition 1996)
Evans,B 1993 Why we no longer need a town planning profession, Planning Practice and Research 8(1)
Fainstein S 2000 New Directions in Planning Theory, Urban Affairs Review 35: 451-478
Fincher R and Iveson K 2008 Planning and Diversity in the City: Redistribution, Recognition and Encounter, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Fyfe NR 1996 Contested visions of a modern city: planning and poetry in postwar Glasgow, Environment and Planning A 28: 387-403
Gans H 1972 People and plans: essays on urban problems and solutions, Harmondsworth: Penguin
Harvey D 1996 On Planning the Ideology of Planning, in, Readings in Planning Theory. S. Campbell and. S. S. Fainstein. Oxford: Blackwell (not included in the second edition) (first published in Harvey D 1978 The Urbanization of Capital, Baltimore: John Hopkins Press
Healey P et al (eds) 1982 Planning Theory: Prospects for the 1980s, Oxford: Pergamon
Healey P 2006 (2nd ed) Collaborative Planning, London: MacMillan
Innes J and Booher D 2010 Planning with Complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy, London: Routledge
Lindblom C E “The Science of Muddling Through”, in, Readings in Planning Theory, S Campbell &S Fainstein (eds) 2003 and1996 (Lindblom’s article was first published in 1959)
McLoughlin JB 1969 Urban & Regional Planning: a Systems Approach, London:
Miles M 2008 “Planning and Conflict”, in, Hall T, Hubbard P & Short R 2008 The Sage Companion to the City, London: Sage
Nedovk-Budk Z 2003 Bridging Theory and Practice, Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring v69 i2
Phillips M 2002 The production, symbolization and socialization of gentrification: impressions from two Berkshire villages, Tramsactions of the Institute of British Geographers 27:3 282-308
Rawls J 1972 A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Rydin,Y (2011) The Purpose of Planning, Policy Press
Sandercock L 2006 'Twists and Turns: The Dance of Explanation', Planning Theory & Practice,7:3,241 — 244
Soja E 1997 Planning in/for Postmodernity, in, Benko G and Strohmayer U (eds) 1997 Space and social theory: interpreting modernity and Postmodernity, Oxford: Blackwell
Thompson R 2000 “Re-defining Planning: The Roles of Theory and Practice”, Planning Theory and Practice, Vol 1 Number 1, September pp128-134
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
Online Support
Workload
This paper is held in the B Semester. It has two contact hours weekly. Students are expected to attend all sessions and complete the required readings. For a 20 point paper it is expected that a student complete 200 learning hours. On the basis of a 16 week semester (including recess and study periods) a student should spend around 11 hours a week on average working on this paper. This includes attending classes, completing assessed work, reading and thinking.
Linkages to Other Papers
Restriction(s)
ENVP406, ENVP510 and GEOG505