ancient cities

604 Planning Theory
Table 1 Dimensions of Planning Theory
Dimensions of
Planning Theory
Substantive
Descriptive Describing the planning object (city,
community, etc.)
Normative Developing norms and ideals for
planning objects (ideal cities,
functional regions, etc.)
there are often implicit normative assumptions. In
recent decades, normative and procedural theories
have dominated other types of planning theories,
but there has also been a renewed interest in substantive
issues (such as the sustainable city and
creative city) partly related to a cultural turn in
planning.
Rational-Comprehensive
Planning and Critiques
The rational­comprehensive theory of planning
was once a dominant school of planning theory.
It incited various challenges, such as incrementalism
and advocacy planning and transactive planning
theories. Developed in the 1950s, its early
advocates included Martin Meyerson and Edward
Banfield in their 1955 book Politics, Planning,
and the Public Interest. According to the rationalcomprehensive
theory, planning should be seen as
a decision­making process in which the planner
functions as an expert. In this role, the planner
studies different action alternatives and their consequences,
both sought or unsought and wanted
or unwanted. The action with the maximum
expected utility is deemed preferable to the other
alternatives. In addition, planners are usually
taken to be politically neutral, fulfilling the objectives
determined by the political institutions.
Their task is to find the “best” means to predetermined
ends. Because rationality is believed to
increase with knowledge, the expert should gather
as much information as possible on the relevant
options and their probable consequences. During
the 1970s, this general view was connected with a
systems­theoretical view of society, with Andreas
Faludi as one of the major advocates. Although
rational­comprehensive planning theory has since
been much criticized, it is still considered a viable
Procedural
Describing the planning process in various local
and national contexts
Developing the planning process (managing the
process, including stakeholders, making
convincing argumentation, etc.)
alternative by many contemporary planning scholars,
and it is also applied in actual planning practice.
Incrementalism
Incrementalism was derived from one of the
earliest critiques of rational­comprehensive planning
and appeared first in Charles Lindblom’s
influential 1959 paper, “The Science of Muddling
Through.” Lindblom juxtaposed what he called the
root method (i.e., rational­comprehensive planning)
with his own branch method in planning.
According to him, the idea of scanning all the available
options and their consequences is not only
practically impossible in day­to­day practice, it is not
even rational. Many of the action alternatives are
relevant only for a short time, and problems may
arise suddenly. It is also politically unrealistic to
change everything at the same time, starting from
the roots. Instead, planners and politicians should
react to immediate problems and challenges, accepting
their insufficient knowledge, and confine their
analysis to successive and limited comparisons.
Many urban practitioners can be said to apply
incrementalism, without necessarily naming it so.
Advocacy Planning
Another criticism of rational­comprehensive
planning was related to the assumed political neutrality
of the planning expert. In 1965, Paul Davidoff
published his influential article, “Advocacy and
Pluralism in Planning,” where he rejected the idea
of the planner as a representative of the public interest.
Many individuals and groups have different and
often conflicting interests related to land use and
urban development, he said, and they should
have experts as advocates, just as in criminal or civil
justice. Not even the research and analysis that