Mayors and Spatial Planning in Their Cities

  • Annick Magnier
  • Panagiotis Getimis
  • Marcello Cabria
  • Luis Baptista
Part of the Governance and Public Management book series (GPM)


In the last decades, institutional reforms and new informal practices have deeply transformed ‘spatial planning’ systems in Europe; in a context of reduced resources, local actors must simultaneously adapt their agenda and networking strategies for local development and urban transformation. Do European mayors continue to have faith in ‘new’ instruments such as territorial strategic planning, integrated urban projects in public–private partnerships? Or do they presently have more trust in a regulation introduced hierarchically within vertical power relations? Are there particular ‘spatial planning’ practices linked to specific urban agendas? Which are the main difficulties mayors have to face in defining urban plans and projects? The mayors’ declarations on the different ‘spatial planning’ instruments show how local leaders are currently contributing to the re-construction of the planning systems. Under the sign of an increasing adherence to the principles of ‘communicative’ planning emerges a composite trend, in contrast with the hypothesis of a progressive uniformity of cultures and practices around Europe. The three patterns of interpretation of the regulation’s function resulting from the statements of mayors suggest, on the contrary, the appearance of original configurations, new national settings and cultures if not of urban situations, which echo some classical models but, nevertheless, deeply revised.


Spatial planning systems Integrated urban projects Public–private partnerships Strategic planning 


  1. Allmendinger, P. (2016). Neoliberal Spatial Governance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bifulco, L., & De Leonardis, O. (2006). Integrazione tra le politiche come opportunità politica. In C. Donolo (Ed.), Il futuro delle politiche pubbliche (pp. 32–58). Milano: Bruno Mondadori.Google Scholar
  3. Booth, P., Breuillard, M., Fraser, C., & Paris, D. (2007). Spatial Planning Systems of Britain and France: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Brotchie, J., Batty, M., Blakely, E., Hall, P., & Newton, P. (1995). Cities in Competition. Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21st Century. Melbourne: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. EC (European Commission). (1997). The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.Google Scholar
  6. Farinós Dasi, J. (Ed.). (2007). Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies from EU to Local Level. Final Report of ESPON Project 2.3.2, (Esch sur Alzette: ESPON Coordination Unit).Google Scholar
  7. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  9. Healey, P. (1992). A Planner’s Day: Knowledge and Action in Communicative Practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hesse, J. J., & Sharpe, L. J. (1991). Local Government in International Perspective: Some Comparative Observations. In J. J. Hesse (Ed.), Local Government and Urban Affairs in International Perspective. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  12. Innes, J. (1995). Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janin Rivolin, U. (2012). Planning Systems as Institutional Technologies: A Proposed Conceptualization and the Implication for Comparison. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Janin Rivolin, U. (2017). Global Crisis and the Systems of Spatial Governance and Planning: A European Comparison. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 994–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jensen-Butler, C., Schachar, A., & Weesep, J. (Eds.). (1997). European Cities in Competition. Adelrshot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  16. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (Eds.). (2004). Gouverner par les instruments. Paris: Presses de Sciences-po.Google Scholar
  17. Mander, J., & Goldsmith, E. (Eds.). (1996). A Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn Toward the Local. San Francisco: Sierra Club.Google Scholar
  18. Morais Mourato, J., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2012). Europeanisation of Domestic Spatial Planning: Exposing Apparent Differences or Unspoken Convergence? In W. Zonneveld, J. De Vries, & L. Janssen-Jansen (Eds.), European Territorial Governance (pp. 157–173). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European Spatial Planning Systems, Social Models and Learning. DISP, 172(1), 35–47.Google Scholar
  20. Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1996). Urban Planning in Europe. International Competition, National Systems and Planning Projects. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ponzini, D. (2016). Introduction: Crisis and Renewal of Contemporary Urban Planning. European Planning Studies, 24(7), 1237–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reimer, M., Getimis, P., & Blotevogel, H. H. (Eds.). (2014). Spatial Planning Systems and Practices in Europe. A Comparative Perspective on Continuity and Changes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Rowe, C., & Koetter, F. (1979). Collage City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annick Magnier
    • 1
  • Panagiotis Getimis
    • 2
  • Marcello Cabria
    • 1
  • Luis Baptista
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of FlorenceFirenzeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Regional DevelopmentPanteion UniversityAthensGreece
  3. 3.Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, CICS.NOVALisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations