Politics of Zoning: Plans, Procedures and Publics in Land-Use Change

  • Marko Marskamp


This chapter uses a case study of land-use change in Vancouver, British Columbia, to describe how the technology of zoning orders uncertainty about the use and occupancy of land, into a land-use standard. It seeks to build on recent Science and Technology Studies (STS) inspired planning studies of the materiality of the world of planning by exploring the many hybrids of land-use planning. After revisiting the STS interest in the production of order, the chapter frames land-use as a “thing,” and traces the many concerns with the use of land. In this way, the case shows how plans and procedures open and close the land-use black box and describes the challenges of two publics to the ordering of uses, users and owners of land through zoning.


  1. Aibar, E., and W.E. Bijker. 1997. Constructing a City: The Cerdà Plan for the Extension of Barcelona. Science, Technology, & Human Values 22: 3–30. doi: 10.1177/016224399702200101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, E.R. 2016. There is no Planning—Only Planning Practices: Notes for Spatial Planning Theories. Planning Theory 15: 91–103. doi: 10.1177/1473095215594617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amin, A., and N. Thrift. 2002. Cities: Reimagining the Urban. 1st ed. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  4. Barry, A. 2001. Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society. London: A&C Black.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2006. Technological Zones. European Journal of Social Theory 9: 239–253. doi: 10.1177/1368431006063343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bassett, E.M. 1922. Zoning. New York: National Municipal League.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1935. Model Laws for Planning Cities, Counties, and States: Including Zoning, Subdivision Regulation, and Protection of Official Map. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Beauregard, R.A. 2012. Planning with Things. Journal of Planning Education and Research 32: 182–190. doi: 10.1177/0739456X11435415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2015. Planning Matter: Acting with Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berelowitz, L. 2010. Dream City: Vancouver and the Global Imagination. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.Google Scholar
  11. Blomley, N. 2016. Land Use, Planning, and the ‘Difficult Character of Property’. Planning Theory & Practice: 1–14. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2016.1179336.
  12. Boelens, L. 2010. Theorizing Practice and Practising Theory: Outlines for an Actor-Relational-Approach in Planning. Planning Theory 9: 28–62. doi: 10.1177/1473095209346499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boddy, T. 2006. Downtown’s Last Resort. Canadian Architect.Google Scholar
  14. Bowker, G.C., and S.L. Star. 2000. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Callon, M. 1984. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review 32: 196–233. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cameron, K., Condon, P., Ducote, F., Geller, M., Gurstein, P., Hein. S., Kemble, M., Spaxman, R., Villagomez, Erick. 2015. Release: Procedural Fairness for the Proposed Re-zoning Application at 508 Helmcken Street. Spacing Vancouver.Google Scholar
  17. City of Vancouver. 1953. Vancouver Charter. Retrieved from
  18. City of Vancouver. 1975. Downtown Official Development Plan. Retrieved from
  19. ———. 2004. Downtown South Guidelines (excluding Granville Street). Retrieved from
  20. ———. 2009a. Brief Explanation of Zoning and Development Permits in Vancouver.
  21. ———. 2009b. Urban Design Panel By-Law No. 4722. Retrieved from
  22. ———. 2011a. Vancouver’s Housing and Homelessness Strategy: 2012–2021; A Home for Everyone. Vancouver. Retrieved from
  23. ———. 2011b. Development Permit Board and Advisory Panel By-Law No. 5869. Retrieved from Scholar
  24. ———. 2013a. West End Community Plan.
  25. ———. 2014. Downtown Official Development Plan Re: West End Community Plan and Social Housing.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2015. Area Specific Development Cost Levy By-Law No. 9418.Google Scholar
  27. Community Association of New Yaletown. 2013. The 1099 Richards and 508 Helmcken Developments will Add more Social Housing. Are you Against Social Housing?
  28. ———. 2015. Media Release: City of Vancouver Appeals Landmark CANY Ruling.
  29. Court of Appeal for British Columbia. 2015. Community Association of New Yaletown v. Vancouver (City). CA42560.Google Scholar
  30. Coutard, O., and S. Guy. 2007. STS and the City: Politics and Practices of Hope. Science, Technology, & Human Values 32: 713–734. doi: 10.1177/0162243907303600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Denis, J., and D. Pontille. 2014. Maintenance Work and the Performativity of Urban Inscriptions: The Case of Paris Subway Signs. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32: 404–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Economist Intelligence Unit. 2015. 2015 Global Liveability Ranking.Google Scholar
  33. Farías, I. 2011. The Politics of Urban Assemblages. City 15: 365–374. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2011.595110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Farías, I., and T. Bender, eds. 2011. Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Fischler, R. 1998. Toward a Genealogy of Planning: Zoning and the Welfare State. Planning Perspectives 13: 389–410. doi: 10.1080/026654398364400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ———. 2012. Fifty Theses on Urban Planning and Urban Planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research 32: 107–114. doi: 10.1177/0739456X11420441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Forester, J. 1988. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2002. Book Review: Reimagining the Urban. disP—The Planning Review 151.Google Scholar
  40. Guggenheim, M. 2010. The Laws of Foreign Buildings: Flat Roofs and Minarets. Social & Legal Studies 19: 441–460. doi: 10.1177/0964663910376990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hommels, A. 2008. Unbuilding Cities: Obduracy in Urban Socio-Technical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hutton, T. 2005. Unsettling the City, Reordering the City: A Review Essay. BC Studies: 97–101.Google Scholar
  43. Kaiser, E.J., D.R. Godschalk, and F.S. Chapin. 1995. Urban Land Use Planning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  44. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lascoumes, P., and P.L. Galès. 2005. Gouverner par les instruments. Paris: Les Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  46. Latour, B. 1993. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. ———. 2004. Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry 30: 225–248. doi: 10.1086/421123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. ———. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Law, J. 1992. Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity. Systems Practice 5: 379–393. doi: 10.1007/BF01059830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ———. 2002. Objects and Spaces. Theory, Culture & Society 19: 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lieto, L., and R.A. Beauregard, eds. 2015. Planning for a Material World. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Marres, N. 2007. The Issues Deserve More Credit. Social Studies of Science 37 (5): 759–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. ———. 2013. Why Political Ontology must be Experimentalized: On Eco-show Homes as Devices of Participation. Social Studies of Science 43 (3): 417–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McCann, E. 2013. Policy Boosterism, Policy Mobilities, and the Extrospective City. Urban Geography 34: 5–29. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2013.778627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Murdoch, J. 2006. Post-Structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Needham, B. 2006. Planning, Law and Economics: The Rules We Make for Using Land. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Punter, J. 2004. The Vancouver Achievement: Urban Planning and Design. Revised ed. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rabinow, P. 1991. French Modern: Norms and Forms of the Social Environment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. de Roo, G., and J. Hillier. 2012. Complexity and Planning: Systems, Assemblages and Simulations. Farnham, Surrey, UK; Burlington, VT: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Rydin, Y. 2010. Planning and the Technological Society: Discussing the London Plan. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34: 243–259. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00901.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. ———. 2014. The Challenges of the ‘Material Turn’ for Planning Studies. Planning Theory & Practice 15: 590–595. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2014.968007.
  64. Rydin, Y., and L. Tate. 2016. Actor Networks of Planning: Exploring the Influence of Actor Network Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Rydin, Y. 2013. Using Actor-Network Theory to Understand Planning Practice: Exploring Relationships Between Actants in Regulating Low Carbon Commercial Development. Planning Theory 12: 23–45. doi:  10.1177/1473095212455494.
  66. Spaxman, R. 2015. Regarding Vancouver’s next director of planning and the pursuit of truth. The Georgia Straight.Google Scholar
  67. Star, S.L. 2010. This is not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35: 601–617. doi: 10.1177/0162243910377624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Supreme Court of British Columbia. 2015. Community Association of New Yaletown v. Vancouver (City). S143452.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marko Marskamp
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations