Info

Notes:

b World Bank (2000). Note that the definition of 'urban' varies slightly by country, so the urban percentage values are not strictly comparable. c World Bank (1987). Germany value is for the Federal Republic only; Russia value is for the USSR.

d Maclennan (1999, p.517), except for the Russia figures which are estimated for the USSR based on Struyk and Kolodeznikova (1999). In the post-Soviet Russia, much existing housing has been privatized but very little new housing has been built, heavy rent subsidy schemes remain in place and current statistics are not available (Struyk, 1996).

e US Department of Transportation (1997). Includes light trucks. This source does not report Netherlands data, so a comparable figure comes from European Union (2000).

• differences in governmental structures, which allow or preclude the formulation of national land use policies and metropolitan-scale governing;

• differences in political traditions, which support socialist or laissez-faire policies;

• nationally dominant cities, which encourage urbanization;

• impact of catastrophic (wartime) damage, which provides political impetus for new buildings and for planning;

• demographic drivers including natural population increase, needs of the oversized post-war baby boom age cohort, migration from rural to metropolitan areas, migration from abroad, migration out of central cities into suburbs, and interregional migrations;

• sociological factors including racism and the entry of females into the workforce;

• economic factors including the 1970s oil shocks and inflation, the sustained prosperity of the 1980s and 1990s, and the over-exuberant real estate markets of the late 1980s; and

• technological factors including differences in the creation of major highway networks, expanded use of automotive vehicles, expansion of air transport and airports, productivity increases in manufacturing and agriculture, plus telecommunications and computer innovations.

Just as physical characteristics differ from place to place, so planning practice varies. Table 38.2 summarizes key features of the context and institutional framework for planning in several advanced industrial countries for which there was access to data. The table's qualitative ratings, such 'high' and 'low', are based on my interpretation of the literature and may be idiosyncratic. Planning in developing nations is typically less formal, more opportunistic and more resource-constrained than is the case for the countries shown.

In some places, such as the USA, planning has become primarily a regulatory function: government planners working for localities enforce zoning regulations in a reactive manner. Consulting planners periodically help municipalities update these regulations while working on a more regular basis for developers to design projects and guide them through the regulatory process. In other places, such as Denmark or the UK, government planners tend to take a more active role in shaping urban form, by offering a grand vision and then negotiating incremental projects with developers in a relatively independent manner, although even here planners are tightly constrained by local politics (Flyvbjerg 1998; Healey et al. 1995). In Soviet Russia, where markets were non-existent, the supposedly powerful planners still had to negotiate for resources with other sectors and levels of government. Everywhere, planners balance substantive concerns about good design with procedural concerns about a legitimate planning process.

Here we briefly discuss the US case to illustrate the concepts embedded in Table 38.2. US planners place an emphasis on procedural legitimacy that often comes at the expense of good design - most US planners do little more than use their highly transparent regulatory process to weed out truly bad development proposals (Brooks 1988). This was not always the case. At the end of the 19th century, principles of town planning still widely accepted in Europe were also the US standard (Fishman 1996). For example, there was a broad consensus that neighborhoods should be designed to ensure that key destinations such as shopping, schools, religious buildings and transport connections were within a five-minute walk of most residences (Duany et al. 2000). The importance of separating

Table 38.2 Comparisons of planning contexts and institutional frameworks

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment