In this paper comparisons of Dutch and British planning are drawn on to ask where to draw the line between flexibility and opportunism, using US zoning as an example. The characteristic of zoning is that it works with statements of intent which become effective only in guiding regulatory measures. US zoning is then analysed against the backcloth of legal rights in landed property and the land regime. It is found to be inflexible in theory.
But, even within the standard model of zoning, there is room for variances and for rezoning. So there are limited areas of discretion, and some of the burden of preparing of decisions is shifted onto applicants. Approaches introduced since have in common that definite decisions are delayed, and that the locus of decision shifts still further towards developers. Thus two perspectives on development are recognised: the broader one of the land regime embodied in the zoning ordinance, and a specific one taking the particular plot of land and its potential uses as its starting point.
The distinction between a flexible and an opportunistic decision cannot be whether preconceived plans are departed from. That is inevitable. Rather, that distinction has to do with how these two perspectives are related to each other. Opportunistic decisions fail to attend to wider implications of departures. They thereby create uncertainty over and above that which already exists. Flexible decisions update plans where these have become outdated. They form an essential element in a dynamic planning system.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AloiF A, 1972, “Legal problems in planned unit development: Uniformity, comprehensive planning, conditions, and the floating zone”Real Estate Law Journal15–42
2.
BabcockR F, 1966The Zoning Game: Municipal Practices and Policies (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI)
3.
BabcockR F, 1979, “Zoning” in The Practice of Local Government Planning Eds SoF SStollmanIBealFArnoldD S, International City Managers' Association, Washington, DC, pp 416–443
4.
BairF HJrBartleyE R, 1966The Text of a Model Zoning Ordinance3rd edition, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, IL
5.
BarnettJ, 1974Urban Design as Public Policy: Practical Methods for Improving Cities (McGraw-Hill, New York)
6.
BarnettJ, 1982An Introduction to Urban Design (Harper and Row, New York)
7.
BarrettSFudgeC, 1981, “Introductory review: Examining the policy — action relationship” in Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy Eds BarrettSFudgeC (Methuen, Andover, Hants) pp 3–32
8.
BaumolW JWallaceE O, 1975The Theory of Environmental Policy: Externalities, Public Outlays, and the Quality of Life (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
9.
BolanR S, 1981, “Do planning theory courses teach planning?”Journal of Planning Education and Research112–14
10.
BraybrookeDLindblomC E, 1963A Strategy for Decisions (Free Press, New York)
11.
BrehenyM J, 1983, “A practical view of planning theory”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design10101–115
12.
BrehenyM JHallP, 1985, “The strange death of strategic planning and the victory of the know-nothing school”The Built Environment1095–99
13.
BrownH J, 1981, “Market failure: Efficiency or equity?” in The Land Use Policy Debate in the United States Ed. de NeufvilleJ I (Plenum Press, New York) pp 143–147
14.
CocksK DAustinM PBasinskiJ J, 1978, “Conceptual framework and implementation of research program” in Land Use on the Coast of New South Wales Ed. BasinskiJ J, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, pp 12–15
15.
CourtneyJ M, 1983, “Intervention through land use regulation” in Urban Land Policy: Issues and Opportunities Ed. DunkerleyH B, (Oxford University Press, New York) pp 153–170
16.
de NeufvilleJ I, 1981, “Introduction: Uncovering the debate” in The Land Use Policy Debate in the United States Ed. de NeufvilleJ I (Plenum Press, New York) pp 1–13
17.
DunkerleyH B, 1983, “Introduction and overview” in Urban Land Policy: Issues and Opportunities Ed. DunkerleyH B, (Oxford University Press, New York) pp 3–39
18.
FaludiA, 1985, “Flexibility in zoning: The Australian case”Australian Planner2319–24
19.
FaludiA, 1986Critical Rationalism and Planning Methodology (Pion, London)
20.
FaludiAMastopJ M, 1982, “The ‘IOR school’: The development of a planning methodology”Environment and Planning B9241–256
21.
FilsteadW J, 1970Qualitative Methodology (Markham, Chicago, IL)
22.
FriedmannJ, 1966, “The institutional context” in Action under Planning Ed. GrossB (McGraw-Hill, New York) pp 31–67
23.
FriedmannJ, 1969, “Planning and societal action”Journal of the American Institute of Planners35311–318
24.
FriedmannJ, 1973Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning (Doubleday, New York)
25.
FriendJ KJessopW N, 1977Local Government and Strategic Choice1st edition1969 (Pergamon Press, Oxford)
26.
GallowayT DMahayniR G, 1977, “Planning theory in retrospect: The process of paradigm change”Journal of the American Institute of Planners4362–71
27.
GerckensL C, 1982, “Bettmann of Cincinnati” in The American Planner: Biographies and Recollections Ed. KrueckebergD A (Methuen, New York) pp 120–148
28.
HaarC M, 1959, “The master plan: An inquiry in dialogue form”Journal of the American Institute of Planners25133–142
29.
HaarC M (Ed.), 1984Cities, Law, and Social Policy: Learning from the British (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA)
30.
HealyR GRosenbergJ S, 1979Land Use and the States1st edition1975 (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
31.
HillM, 1981, “The policy-implementation distinction: A quest for rational control?” in Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy Eds BarrettSFudgeC (Methuen, Andover, Hants) pp 207–223
32.
HiteJ CLaurentE A, 1972Environmental Planning: An Economic Analysis (Praeger, New York)
33.
KentT JJr, 1964The Urban General Plan (Chandler, San Francisco, CA)
34.
KrasnowieckiJ, 1974, “Legal aspects of planned unit development in theory and practice” in Land Use Controls: Present Problems and Future Reform Ed. ListokinD (Center for Urban Policy Research, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 185–201
35.
KrueckebergD A, 1982, “From the autobiography of Edward M Bassett” in The American Planner: Biographies and Recollections Ed. KrueckebergD A (Methuen, New York) pp 100–119
36.
LeeD BJr, 1981, “Land use planning as a response to market failure” in The Land Use Policy Debate in the United States Ed. de NeufvilleJ I (Plenum Press, New York) pp 149–164
37.
LefcoeG, 1981, “California's land planning requirements: The case for deregulation”Southern California Law Review54447–501
38.
LinowesR RAllensworthD T, 1981The Politics of Land Use: Planning, Zoning, and the Private Developer (Praeger, New York)
39.
LoganT H, 1976, “The Americanization of German zoning”Journal of the American Institute of Planners42377–385
40.
MandelkerD R, 1970, “The basic philosophy of zoning: Incentive or restraint?” in The New Zoning: Legal, Administrative and Economic Concepts and Techniques Eds MarcusNGrovesM W (Praeger, New York) pp 14–22
41.
MandelkerD R, 1981, “The taking issue in land use regulation” in The Land Use Policy Debate in the United States Ed. de NeufvilleJ I (Plenum Press, New York) pp 167–180
42.
MooreT, 1978, “Why allow planners to do what they do? A justification from economic theory”Journal of the American Institute of Planners44387–398
43.
NelsonR H, 1977Zoning and Property Rights: An Analysis of the American System of Land-Use Regulation (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
44.
NelsonR H, 1985, “A breath of free markets in zoning”The Wall Street Journal 22 May
45.
PerloffH S, with KlettF, 1974, “The future of planning education” in Planning in America: Learning from Turbulence Ed. GodschalkD R (American Institute of Planners, Washington, DC) pp 161–180
46.
PopperK R, 1961The Poverty of Historicism first published in 1944–45 (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon)
47.
PopperK R, 1966The Open Society and Its Enemies2 volumes, 1st edition1945 (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon)
48.
PressmanJ LWildavskyA, 1973Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
49.
ReillyW K (Ed.), 1973The Use of Land: A Citizen's Policy Guide to Urban Growth: A Task Force Report Sponsored by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (Thomas Y Crowell, New York)
50.
RoseJ G, 1975, “The transfer of development rights: A preview of an evolving concept”Real Estate Law Journal3330–358
51.
RoseJ G, 1979Legal Foundations of Land Use Planning: Textbook/Casebook and Materials on Planning Law (The Center for Urban Policy Research, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ)
52.
RosenbaumN, 1976Land Use and the Legislatures: The Politics of State Innovation (The Urban Institute, Washington, DC)
53.
RoweisS T, 1983, “Urban planning as professional mediation of territorial politics”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space1139–162
54.
SelmanP H, 1981Ecology and Planning: An Introductory Study (George Godwin, London)
55.
SieganB H, 1972Land Use Without Zoning (D C Heath, Lexington, MA)
56.
SusskindL E, 1974, “The future of the planning profession” in Planning in America: Learning from Turbulence Ed. GodschalkD R, American Institute of Planners, Washington, DC, pp 138–160
57.
ThomasH DMinettJ MHopkinsSHamnettS LFaludiABarrellD, 1983Flexibility and Commitment in Planning (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague)
58.
TurveyR, 1955, “What is the case for planning?”Journal of the Town Planning Institute41269–270
59.
van GunsterenH R, 1976The Quest for Control: A Critique of the Rational-central-rule Approach in Public Affairs (John Wiley, New York)
60.
WalkerR A, 1950The Planning Function in Urban Government (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
61.
WeaverC LBabcockR F, 1979City Zoning: The Once and Future Frontier (Planners Press, Chicago, IL)
62.
WebberM M, 1968, “Planning in an environment of change: Part I: Beyond the industrial age”The Town Planning Review39179–195
63.
WebberM M, 1969, “Planning in an environment of change: Part II: Permissive planning”The Town Planning Review39277–295
64.
WeinsteinR, 1970, “How New York's zoning was changed to induce the construction of legitimate theatres” in The New Zoning: Legal, Administrative, and Economic Concepts and Techniques Eds MarcusNGrovesM W (Praeger, New York) pp 130–136
65.
WildavskyA, 1973, “If planning is everything, maybe it's nothing”Policy Sciences4127–153
66.
WrightR RWebberS, 1978Land Use in a Nutshell (West, St Paul, MN)
