Planning Theory

This paper draws on the work of Jean Baudrillard to critique the manner in which notions of ‘identity’ and ‘difference’ are employed in understandings of the multicultural city. It begins with an overview of ways in which ethnicity is construed in the planning literature on multicultural cities. This is followed by discussion of Baudrillard’s contention that the basic terms of engagement with multiculturalism, ‘identity’ and ‘difference’, are problematic in so far as they mirror the fundamental means by which discrimination is effected in capitalist societies. It is argued that, in some cases, commentators on the multicultural city merely rehearse and entrench certain of capitalism’s key ideological ‘alibis’; in other cases, commentators present as critical insights what Baudrillard might regard as normative descriptions of the current machinations of capitalism.

As urban self-organization grows into a key concept in spatial planning—explaining spontaneous spatial transformations—the understandings and applications of the concept divert. This article turns to the ontological dimension of urban self-organization and scrutinizes how a critical realist and a post-structuralist ontology inspire theoretical practices, analytical tendencies, empirical readings, and subsequent planning interventions in relation to urban self-organization. This is illustrated with an example of the self-organized regeneration of a deprived street in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. With this contribution, we aim to create ontological self-awareness among planning scholars in studying urban self-organization and invite them to reflect on how their positions complement, deviate, and potentially challenge or inspire those of others. We argue that by clarifying ontological diversity in urban self-organization, theoretical practices and complexity-informed planning interventions can be further deepened and enriched.

This paper focuses on the use of vague discourse in planning. Early contributions identified vagueness as a ‘problem’ to be solved so as to avoid potential misunderstandings and conflicts. This paper adopts the complementary point of view whereby vagueness can also be a ‘resource’, that is, a strategy used by actors in adverse circumstances. A systematic analysis of the texts and illustrations of 36 urban transport plans shows that vagueness is an essential ingredient. It is used mainly as a way to hedge against unwanted public commitments in the context of major uncertainties and tension between actors.

In this article, I readdress the issue of rationality, which has been so far considered in western liberal democracies and in planning theory as procedural, and more recently as post-political in the post-foundational approach, aiming to show how it can gain a substantive and politicising character. I first discuss the problems and limits of the treatment of rational thinking as well as rational consensus-seeking as merely procedural and post-political. Secondly, utilising the notion of Realrationalität of Flyvbjerg, I discuss how rationality attains a politicising role due to its strong relationship with power. Using the concept of planning rationality aiming at public interest, I present the general position and actions of professional organisations in Turkey, focusing on the Chamber of City Planners, as an example illustrative of my argument. I finally argue that rationality becomes a substantive issue that politicizes planning, when it is put forward as an alternative to authoritarian market logic. In doing so, I adopt the Rancièrian definition of the political, defined as disclosure of a wrong and staging of equality. In conclusion, I first emphasize the importance of avoiding quick rejections of the concepts of rationality and consensus in the framework of planning activity and planning theory and secondly, call for a broader definition of the political; the political that is not confined to conflict but is open to rational thinking and rational consensus.

America’s long post war boom was underpinned by the state, by Roosevelt’s New Deal, by its wartime economy, and by Roosevelt’s plans for investment in post war science and infrastructure. In the 1970s America abandoned its developmental model, as critics from left and right attacked plans and planners: yet in the fast rising states of Asia it was embraced. Is it too late for a wakeup call in America and Britain, the champions of anti-planning and the small state? This paper looks for explanations, examines consequences and suggests that the Covid pandemic may trigger a sea change in norms, values and attitudes towards planning and governance.