A Patchwork Theoretical Approach to Urban Planning

Fitzsimmons 1 Emily Fitzsimmons Dr. Wieters RCPL 5013 001 2 December 2020 A Patchwork Theoretical Approach to Urban Planning In understanding and practicing urban planning, it is important to maintain a holistic view of the trade that is based on both experience and theory. Theoretical approaches help provide context to how our environment is shaped as well as guiding principles of how the world acts and reacts (Wieters, “Rational� 33). Meanwhile, experience provides practical context of similar situations and provides direction based on previous projects. Intertwining concepts from both creates a comprehensive approach that helps planners perform at their best. At this point, in my education, my values do not adhere to a single, existing planning theory. Rather, my mindset consists of components from several theories, creating a multifaceted approach to planning that heavily emphasizes versatility, equity, and community engagement.

When learning about the existing theories in urban planning academia, I became conflicted, for I found myself identifying at least partially with most of the theories discussed in lecture and in the literature. Even as I related to new theoretical approaches, I was unable to completely divorce myself from the approaches I had learned before. Additionally, I became confused at how I connected with all these sometimes-conflicting theories, especially because I had not realized how strongly I felt about certain components of these approaches. Eventually, I decided that there was no need to tie myself to just one; in fact, maintaining links with several would probably make me better planner.

This judgement reminded me of Amitai Etzioni, who must have felt similarly when he

Fitzsimmons 2 decided to develop a new theoretical approach called mixed scanning, which consolidated two diametrically opposed schools of thought, the rational planning model and incrementalism (Wieters, “Mixed” 3). The rational planning model relates heavily to the scientific method, including a clear system of steps to set goals, thoroughly evaluate possible solutions, implement the chosen option, and then monitor, evaluate, and analyze the project after completion and make revisions (Wieters, “Rational” 40). This approach calls for the planner to be an objective scientist who relies on empirical data rather than intuition in order to find a technical solution (45).

Because this process is so thorough, rational planning consumes a large amount of resources and time. By contrast, the incremental method is often described as just “muddling through”; the process is much smaller than the rational planning model (Etzioni 385). Instead of exploring as many alternatives as possible, incrementalism only explores the few, most likely possibilities in order to make the most of the time and resources the entity possesses. The method largely relies on precedent and building off what has been done in the past to make modest changes (Etzioni 386; Wieters, “Incrementalism” 2-7).

Like Etzioni, I find value in both these approaches, despite their considerable differences.

In particular, I think that the clear system of problem-solving steps from rational planning is valuable in efficient project implementation in varying contexts; this careful organization also brings more stability and direction to the process, which I think would be especially helpful to those in the community who are participating in the project. Additionally, the thorough exploration of many alternatives is important because it brings new ideas and innovation to the table that may have been ignored otherwise. Lastly, I appreciated that the final steps in the rationalist model included monitoring and analyzing the project after completion to revise the product and carry the lessons learned into future projects. However, such a thorough process is

Fitzsimmons 3 often not realistic to a local government’s timeline or budget: The incrementalism approach accounts for that limit in making effective changes (Etzioni 387). I think this is incrementalism’s greatest strength; planners following this method can still make meaningful changes in smaller ways when they do not have the means for grander projects. This route may be even necessary to make certain changes in communities particularly set in their ways or lacking the necessary resources.

Mixed scanning argues that it should not just be one or the other; instead, each approach is appropriate for different contexts or should both be done for one project (Etzioni 388-390).

Furthermore, mixed scanning requires that both these processes make decisions toward a larger goal (Wieters, “Mixed” 3-7). For instance, a city planning department may use the rational planning model in a project to build a large park downtown. Meanwhile, the department may also follow the incrementalism model when updating land use regulations. Or if the city’s housing stock lacks affordable housing, the department may make incremental policy that gets more housing built quickly but also makes a long-term plan for additional housing over the next few decades (Wieters, “Mixed” 13-14). Regarding project management, I found mixed scanning to be the most appropriate as it allows for flexibility according to varying situations.

Although these approaches can easily include community engagement, rational planning, incrementalism, and mixed scanning do not clearly define the level of communication needed between the planners and the community. I think that this is a critical component that must be distinctly included in planning theory. Fortunately, there are alternative approaches that focus more on community engagement, such as advocacy planning, transactive planning, communicative planning, and radical planning. In the 1960s, Paul Davidoff formulated advocacy planning in response to the severely discriminatory practices in planning at the time, including

Fitzsimmons 4 redlining and urban renewal. Advocacy planning consists of a “plurality of plans,” in which planners partner with a certain group in the community to make the plan that fits their best interest, with no consideration to how it interacts with other groups’ plans. Then each planner proposes their plans to the planning commissioner or city council, playing the role of advocate for just that one group. This ensures that each group, including the minority populations that have historically been ignored, have an adamant voice in the planning process (Davidoff; Wieters, “Advocacy” 7-9).

Meanwhile, transactive and communicative planning theory are essentially the same approach; their focus lies on direct relationships and discourse between planners and the people affected (Fainstein 453-455). Transactive planning also emphasizes learning by doing, social learning, and learning with and from the community. The planner cannot assume that empirical data and surveys are sufficient; rather, he or she should seek a dialogue with the community and encourage participation and collaboration. Additionally, the success of a planning project is measured by how it affected people (Wieters, “Advocacy” 16-17).

Lastly, radical planning theory takes that relationship even further so that community members play an equal role to that of planners. Based on Marxist concepts, the radical approach calls for structural equality, decentralization of power, as well as a movement away from elitist planning. Planners help a community develop toward self-reliance, so they can eventually manage and lead for themselves. Additionally, this approach emphasizes personal growth, cooperation, mutual aid, and environmental sustainability (Wieters, “Advocacy” 15).

Again, I found all these approaches valuable to the planning process. Specifically, I found the most value in radical planning in its focus on social and environmental sustainability. The latter is increasingly necessary each day as humans continue to make larger and more damaging

Fitzsimmons 5 impacts on the earth upon which we wholly depend. As planners shape the urban environment and regulate how cities function, one of their core responsibilities must be ecological attentiveness. Additionally, planners should support grassroots activism and show communities how to be mostly self-reliant; this will help the people maintain positive connections with each other and be strong enough to advocate for themselves. Similarly, I appreciated the heavy emphasis in advocacy planning for supporting marginalized groups. Planning has historically displaced and disregarded the voices of people of color, immigrants, those with disabilities, those in the LGBTQ+ community, low-income residents, and others who are not wealthy, white, and male. Such actions have caused persistently harmful generational effects; therefore, it is planners’ responsibility to make reparations and advocate for those people. Additionally, as transactive and communicative planning theory asserts, planners must listen to the community, learn with them, and maintain a direct discourse with them. Lastly, I appreciate how transactive planning theory judges the effectiveness of projects by how it affects people.

In stitching together individual concepts from each of these theories, I have created my own Frankenstein’s monster-esque theoretical approach to planning that I will be able to use to guide my actions. Correspondingly, in picking out the parts most important to me, I noticed some central themes: equity, communication, and versatility.

In order to promote equity, my theoretical approach emphasizes social sustainability: Like in transactive planning, this means that planners must consider the effects that projects will have on people, and as in radical planning theory, planners must also support communities as they learn how to self-advocate, maintain connections, and eventually become self-reliant.

Additionally, my theoretical approach demands that planners integrate environmental equity and environmental injustice reparations into all projects because they are necessary components of

Fitzsimmons 6 social sustainability. Furthermore, my approach prioritizes communities who have been neglected or abused, as advocacy planning does; as Davidoff stated, “the welfare of all and the welfare of minorities are both deserving of support” (Davidoff 424). By the same token, practicing mixed scanning theory will help handle situations equitably: If a neighborhood is already stable, planners should make incremental improvements; if a neighborhood is deteriorating quickly or has been neglected for many years, planners should funnel more resources into completing a full, rationalist project.

Secondly, my theoretical approach clearly specifies the need for communication and engagement with the community. It requires involving those affected in at least some of the steps of the process and letting them lead the way in decision-making rather than anonymous and disconnected influencers, as in radical planning. Coincidingly, cooperating with communities, facilitating their growth, and showing them how to advocate for themselves is part of the planner’s responsibilities. As illustrated in Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation, there is a range of community engagement with eight categories from manipulation to citizen control. My approach requires that planners operate within the degrees of citizen power categories, which include partnership, delegated power, and citizen power (Arnstein; Wieters, “Advocacy” 22-24).

Lastly, my theoretical approach exercises versatility in data collection and execution. No two situations are identical, so different planning methods should be used accordingly. This mainly comes from mixed scanning theory, which assigns rationalism and incrementalism to different contexts and types of projects. Similarly, planners should utilize multiple types of information as well as various types of data collection methods. Supporting a planning project with only data extracted from surveys or only stories told at general meetings will paint an

Fitzsimmons 7 incomplete picture of the current conditions; therefore, my approach encourages planners to seek a holistic view through a variety of sources, similar to transactive planning theory. This will help limit bias and ensure that projects are addressing the right issues.

To conclude, theoretical approaches along with experience help guide planners’ actions; therefore, it is important to understand one’s own theoretical approach in navigating planning and decision-making. Unable to wed myself to just one of the existing planning theories, I have collected certain components from various ones into a patchwork theoretical approach to planning practice. Although, my approach is open to adjustments as I learn and experience more, it firmly concentrates on equity, community engagement, and versatility.

Fitzsimmons 8 Works Cited Arnstein, Sherry R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 35, no. 4, 26 Nov. 2007, pp. 216-224. PDF. Davidoff, Paul. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1965, pp. 422-432. PDF. Etzioni, Amitai. “Mixed-Scanning: A ‘Third’ Approach to Decision-Making.” Public Administration Review, vol. 27, no. 5, Dec. 1967, pp. 385-392. PDF. Fainstein, Susan. “New Directions in Planning Theory.” Urban Affairs Review, vol. 35, no. 4, Mar. 2000, pp. 451-478. PDF. Wieters, Kathleen M. “Advocacy Planning, Radical Planning, Transactive Planning.” RCPL 5013 001: History and Theory of Urban Planning, 23 Nov. 2020, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. Lecture.

---. “Incrementalism.” RCPL 5013 001: History and Theory of Urban Planning, 16 Nov. 2020, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. Lecture.

---. “Mixed Scanning.” RCPL 5013 001: History and Theory of Urban Planning, 16 Nov. 2020, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. Lecture.

---. “Rational Planning Model & Land Use Theories.” RCPL 5013 001: History and Theory of Urban Planning, 4 Nov. 2020, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. Lecture.