Advertisement

Past, Present, Future: The Historical Evolution of Metropolitan Planning Conceptions and Styles

  • Daniel GallandEmail author
  • Mark Tewdwr-Jones
Chapter
  • 307 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter examines the historical evolution and emerging trends and priorities of metropolitan planning through an analysis concerning its substance and processes. The point of departure is an analysis of the evolving driving forces that influence the adoption and articulation of different planning conceptions and planning styles in catering to metropolitan development. The aim is to periodise substantive and procedural debates pertaining to change and continuity of the institution of planning in its task to shape metropolitan regions. Emphasis is placed on European casuistry, but we also allude to metropolitan planning efforts undertaken elsewhere. On this basis, we illustrate how different spatial ideas relate to evolving development orientations, and how particular planning rationales reflect key values and preferences shaping the roles of planning and their agents.

Keywords

Metropolitan planning Planning styles Planning conceptions Metropolitan regions Metropolitan policy 

References

  1. Albrechts, L., Healey, P., & Kunzmann, K. (2003). Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A, 41(3), 617–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allmendinger, P., Haughton, G., Knieling, J., & Otherngrafen, F. (Eds.). (2015). Soft spaces in Europe: Re-negotiating governance, boundaries and borders. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bäcklund, P., Häikiö, L., Leino, H., & Kanninen, V. (2018). Bypassing publicity for getting things done: Between informal and formal planning practices in Finland. Planning Practice & Research, 33(3), 309–325.Google Scholar
  5. Brenner, N. (2001). The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration. Progress in Human Geography, 25(4), 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenner, N. (2004a). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brenner, N. (2004b). Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in western Europe, 1960–2000. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3), 447–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brindley, T., Rydin, I., & Stoker, G. (1996). Remaking planning: The politics of urban change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Davoudi, S. (2012). The legacy of positivism and the emergence of interpretive tradition in spatial planning. Regional Studies, 46(4), 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davoudi, S. (2018). Spatial planning: The promised land or roll-out neoliberalism? In M. Gunder, A. Madanipour, & V. Watson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of planning theory (pp. 15–27). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Elinbaum, P., & Galland, D. (2016). Analysing contemporary metropolitan spatial plans in Europe through their institutional context, instrumental content and planning process. European Planning Studies, 24(1), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fiskaa, H. (2005). Past and future for public participation in Norwegian physical planning. European Planning Studies, 13(1), 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedmann, J. (1963). Regional planning as a field of study. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 29(3), 168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedmann, J. (1966). Planning as innovation: The Chilean case. Journal of the American Planning Association, 32(4), 194–204.Google Scholar
  15. Furre, B. (1991). Vårt hundreår, norsk historie 1905–1990. Samlaget: Oslo.Google Scholar
  16. Galland, D., & Elinbaum, P. (2015). Redefining territorial scales and the strategic role of spatial planning: Evidence from Denmark and Catalonia. disP—The Planning Review, 51(4), 66–85.Google Scholar
  17. Galland, D., & Elinbaum, P. (Eds.). (2018). A ‘field’ under construction: The state of planning in Latin America and the southern turn in planning. disP—The Plann Review, 54(1), 18–54.Google Scholar
  18. Graham, S., & Healey, P. (1999). Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European Planning Studies, 7(5), 623–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grønning, M. (2011). What is the Fjord City? Territorio, 56(1), 141–150.Google Scholar
  20. Grønning, M., & Galland, D. (2019). Conceptual heterogeneity and spatial transition—The evolution of metropolitan plans for Copenhagen and Oslo in comparison. In Association of European schools of planning (AESOP) annual congress: Planning for transition. Venice: AESOP.Google Scholar
  21. Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall, P., & Peacock, B. (1973). The containment of urban England (Volume 2)—The planning system: Objectives, operations, impacts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Hals, H. (1929). Fra Christania til Stor-Oslo (from christiania to greater Oslo). Oslo: Aschehoug & Co.Google Scholar
  24. Harding, A. (2007). Taking city regions seriously? Response to debate on ‘city-regions’: New geographies of governance, democracy and social reproduction. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(2), 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harding, A., & Blokland, T. (2014). Urban theory: A critical Introduction to power, cities and urbanism in the 21st century. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Harvey, D. (1987). Flexible accumulation through urbanization: Reflections on “post-modernism” in the American city. Antipode, 19(3), 260–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., Counsell, D., & Vigar, G. (2010). The new spatial planning: Territorial management with soft spaces and fuzzy boundaries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A., & Needham, B. (1997). Making strategic spatial plans: Innovation in Europe. London: UCL Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holsen, T. (2017). Samfunnsplanlegging, arealplanlegging og plangjennomføring (community planning, land-use planning and plan implementation). Kart og Plan, 77(3), 237–249.Google Scholar
  31. Jessop, B. (1990). State theory: Putting the capitalist state in its place. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jessop, B. (2008). State power: A strategic-relational approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3), 389–401.Google Scholar
  34. Jones, M. (1997). Spatial selectivity of the state? The regulationist enigma and local struggles over economic governance. Environment and Planning A, 29(5), 831–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Knapp, G.-J., Nedović-Budić, Z., & Carbonell, A. (Eds.). (2015). Planning for states and nation-states in the US and Europe. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
  36. Lorange, E., & Myhre, J. E. (1991). Urban planning in Norway. In T. Hall (Ed.), Planning and urban growth in the Nordic Countries (pp. 147–203). London: Spon Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mäntysalo, R., Jarenko, K., Nilsson, K. L., & Saglie, I. L. (2015). Legitimacy of informal strategic urban planning—Observations from Finland, Sweden and Norway. European Planning Studies, 23(2), 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marston, S., Jones, J. P., III, & Woodward, K. (2005). Human geography without scale. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(4), 416–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naustdalslid, J., & Tombre, E. (1997). Compendium of spatial planning systems and policies: Norway. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research.Google Scholar
  40. Nordregio, (2017). Urban contractual policies in Northern Europe. Stockholm: Nordregio.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. (2015). The metropolitan century: Understanding urbanisation and its consequences. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raco, M. (2013). The new contractualism, the privatization of the welfare state, and the barriers to open source planning. Planning Practice & Research, 28(1), 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Şahin, Z., Galland, D., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2020). In what sense an evolution of metropolitan planning actors? In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 213–227). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Salet, W., & Faludi, A. (Eds.). (2000). The revival of strategic spatial planning. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
  45. Salet, W., Vermeulen, R., Savini, F., & Dembski, S. (2015). Planning for the new European metropolis: Functions, politics and symbols. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(2), 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2008). The complexity of planning reform: A search for the spirit and purpose of planning. The Town Planning Review, 79(6), 673–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2012). Spatial planning and governance: Understanding UK planning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Galland, D. (2020). Planning metropolitan futures, the future of metropolitan planning: In what sense planning agile? In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 229–239). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Tønnesen, A. (2015). Democratic anchorage and performance: Comparing two network approaches to land-use and transport-system development. Local Government Studies, 41(5), 653–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wheeler, S. (2000). Planning for metropolitan sustainability. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(2), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wheeler, S. (2009). Regions, megaregions, and sustainability. Regional Studies, 43(6), 863–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway
  2. 2.Newcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations