The paper is an attempt to contribute to studies of landscape production in cultural geography and investigations of the role of texts and discourses in critical planning studies. The main argument is that detailed study of contemporary planning processes overcomes the cruder terms of recent debates over idealism and realism or materialism in cultural geography and permits planning studies to loosen the notion of what texts are important in shaping planning decisions. A detailed case study of a prolonged planning dispute over the production of new landscapes around Lexington, Kentucky provides an empirical basis for the three interrelated theoretical arguments that conclude the paper. These are: (1) to understand landscape and the fundamental role the state plays in it, there must be a recognition of the interwoven nature of discourse and materiality; (2) the fact that state institutions are where different landscape interpretations are articulated allows them to overcome crises of legitimacy and accumulation through the rhetoric of liberal planning; (3) the institutional sites of the state, such as the planning commission, are vitally important spaces in any process of landscape production because their procedures tend to create two ‘sides' in any contest and thus legitimate certain discourses while closing off possibilities for other views to be included in state-sponsored policy documents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnesT JDuncanJ S, 1992, “Introduction: writing worlds”, in Writing Worlds: Discourse, Text and Metaphor in the Representation of Landscape Eds BarnesT JDuncanJ S (Routledge, New York) pp 1–17
2.
BeauregardR, 1989, “Between modernity and postmodernity: the ambiguous position of US planning”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space7381–395
3.
BrownK, 1994, “Interviews with John Veith and Dag Ryan”Bluegrass Magazine6(5) 32–33
4.
ClarkGDearM, 1984State Apparatus: Structures and Languages of Legitimacy (Allen and Unwin, Boston, MA)
5.
CosgroveD, 1984Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape (Croom Helm, London)
6.
CosgroveDDanielsS, (Eds), 1988The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
7.
DavisM, 1990City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles (Verso, London)
8.
DearM, 1986, “Postmodernism and planning”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space4367–384
9.
DearM, 1989, “Survey 16: Privatization and the rhetoric of planning practice”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space7449–462
10.
DukeK, 1994, “Bluegrass horse farms: are we losing too many?”Bluegrass Magazine6(5) 26–31
11.
DuncanJ S, 1990The City as Text: The Politics of Landscape Interpretation in the Kandyan Kingdom (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
12.
DuncanJ SDuncanN, 1988, “(Re)reading the landscape”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space6111–126
13.
DuncanJ SLeyD, 1993, “Introduction: representing the place of culture”, in Place/Culture/Representation Eds DuncanJ SLeyD (Routledge, New York) pp 1–21
14.
EAMP, September1995—July 1996 Transcripts of Monthly EAMP Committee MeetingsLexington—Fayette Urban County Government, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, KY
15.
GramsciA, 1971Selections from the Prison Notebooks translated and edited by HoareQNowell SmithG (International Publishers, New York)
16.
HarveyD, 1987, “Flexible accumulation through urbanization: reflections on ‘post-modernism’ in the American city”Antipode19260–286
17.
HarveyD, 1989aThe Condition of Postmodernity: An Inquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (Blackwell, Winchester, MA)
18.
HarveyD, 1989b, “From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation of urban governance in late capitalism”Geografiska Annaler71B3–17
19.
HarveyD, 1996, “On planning the ideology of planning”, in Readings in Planning Theory Eds CampbellSFainsteinS (Blackwell, Winchester, MA) pp 176–197
20.
Herald-Leader1993a, “Builders push for expanded Urban Service Area”, 23 July, pages B1, B14
21.
Herald-Leader1993b, “Planners against expanding Service Area”, 12 December, pages A1, A4
HillierJ, 1993, “To boldly go where planners have never …”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space1189–113
24.
KennyJ.1992, “Portland's Comprehensive Plan as text: the Fred Meyer case and the polities of reading”, in Writing Worlds: Discourse, Text and Metaphor in the Representation of Landscape Eds BarnesT JDuncanJ S (Routledge, New York) pp 176–192
25.
KnaapGNelsonA C, 1992The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA)
26.
KnoxP L, 1991, “The restless urban landscape: economic and sociocultural change and the transformation of metropolitan Washington, DC”Annals of the Association of American Geographers81181–209
27.
LawsG, 1994, “Urban policy and planning as discursive practices”Urban Geography15592–600
28.
LefebvreH, 1991The Production of Space translated by Nicholson-SmithD (Blackwell, Winchester, MA)
29.
Lexington—Fayette Urban County Government, 1996Expansion Area Master Plan, Proposed Official Draft 2 June, Lexington—Fayette Urban County Government, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, KY
30.
LoganJ RMolotchH, 1987Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
31.
McKenzieE, 1994Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
32.
MitchellD, 1993, “State intervention in landscape production: the Wheatland Riot and the California Commission of Immigration and Housing”Antipode2591–113
33.
MitchellD, 1994, “Landscape and surplus value: the making of the ordinary in Brentwood, CA”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space127–20
34.
MitchellD, 1996a, “Sticks and stones: the work of landscape”Professional Geographer4894–96
35.
MitchellD, 1996bThe Lie of the Land: Migrant Workers and the California Landscape (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
36.
MyersonGRydinY, 1994, “‘Environment’ and planning: a tale of the mundane and the sublime”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space12437–452
37.
PeaceA, 1993, “Environmental protest, bureaucratic closure”, in Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology Ed. MiltonK (Routledge, New York) pp 188–204
38.
PeetR, 1991, Review of The City as Text by J S DuncanAnnals of the Association of American Geographers83184–187
39.
PeetR, 1996, “Discursive idealism in the ‘landscape-as-text’ school”Professional Geographer4896–98
40.
RaitzKVanDommelenD, 1990, “Creating the landscape symbol vocabulary for a regional image: the case of the Kentucky Bluegrass”Landscape Journal9109–121
41.
ScheinR H, 1997, “The place of landscape: a conceptual framework for interpreting the American scene”Annals of the Association of American Geographers87660–680
42.
SojaE, 1989Postmodern Geographies (Verso, London)
43.
StockB, 1983The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
44.
StockB, 1986, “Texts, readers and enacted narratives”Visible Language20294–301
45.
TettAWolfeJ M, 1991, “Discourse analysis and city plans”Journal of Planning Education Research10195–200
46.
ThompsonT, 1994, “Open letter to Mayor Pam Miller”Herald-Leader 19 September, page A7
47.
Van LieuJJonesJ P, 1994, “Discursive limits to agency”, in Marginalized Places and Populations: A Structurationist Agenda Eds WilsonDHuffJ O (Praeger, New York) pp 149–164
48.
WaltonJ R, 1995, “How real(ist) can you get?”Professional Geographer4761–65
49.
WaltonJ R, 1996, “Bridging the divide—a reply to Mitchell and Peet”Professional Geographer4898–100
50.
WangJ T, 1982The Urban Service Area Concept: Lexington's Experience (Kentucky Real Estate Research Center, Lexington, KY)
51.
WhartonM EBarbourR W, 1991Bluegrass Land and Life: Land Character, Plants, and Animals of the Inner Bluegrass Region of Kentucky Past Present and Future (University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY)
52.
WhatmoreSBoucherS, 1993, “Bargaining with nature: the discourse and practice of ‘environmental planning gain’”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series18166–178
