URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES INSTITUTE
Minnesota State University
Fall, 2014
URBS 602: Urban Planning Process
Class meets on Mondays at 6:00 pm – 8:45 pm in WH 0116
Instructor: Raymond Asomani-Boateng Ph.D.
Office: 106 Morris Hall
Office Hours: Mondays (10 am – 4:00pm)
Office Phone: 507-389-5030
Email: raymond.asomani-boateng@mnsu.edu
Texts: (Available at Barnes & Noble)
Brooks, Michael P. 2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Planners Press APA.
Campbell, Scott and Susan Fainstein, eds. 2003. Readings in Planning Theory.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers
Hoch, Charles J., Linda C. Dalton, and Frank S. So. 2000. The Practice of Local
Government Planning, Washington, DC: International City/ County Management
Association. (“The Green Book”)
Course Description and Objectives
This course is based on the premise that good planning practice should be grounded in
good planning theory. There is still no “body of theory” that can guide and inform our
planning efforts, but there are already numerous planning theories that merit our
attention. Two types of planning theories will be explored. They are theories of urban
development and theories of planning practice. Theories of urban development focus
on how cities grow and include: Concentric zone circle; Sector; Multiple Nuclei; Central
Place. Theories of planning practice are about how planners perform their work, and
contain theories that are used to justify and determine planning interventions. They
include: Rational Comprehensive; Incremental; Mixed Scanning; Advocacy; Transactive;
Radical; Communicative. This course will examine the political and economic
assumptions of each planning theory, and the historical context from which these
theories have evolved. Planning ethics as well as contemporary theoretical paradigms,
such as participatory planning, sustainable development, and strategic planning will be
examined.
Course Outcomes
Specifically, the course is meant to:





Familiarize you with the theoretical dialogue in planning scholarship
Help you develop your own theoretical stance; and
Provide and introduction to professional ethics in planning
Develop the ability to outline the process for planning from concept through
implementation and evaluation and;
Familiarize you with both the AICP exam subject matter and AICP exam selected
readings.
Course Requirements
You are responsible for completing the readings and knowing the material covered in
the course sessions. Regular attendance and classroom participation will enhance your
understanding of the course material, and improve the quality of your work.
The assignments for the course:
1. Class presentation. (5% of final grade)
2. Quiz. (15% of final grade)
3. Planning ethics assignment (10% of final grade).
4. Class exercise (10% of final grade)
5. Analysis and Critique of a Planning or Zoning Board Meeting (15% of final grade)
(Due Nov. 3, 2014)
6. Paper that applies theoretical concepts discussed in the course to an actual
planning situation, demonstrating your knowledge of planning theory and your
ability to apply theory to planning practice. (20% of final grade).
7. Final exam (25% of final grade).
Class presentation (Questions)
1.
Why did Jane Jacobs identify diversity as the core characteristic of a vital city? What were the
components of diversity? What were the fundamental flaws in planning in 1961? What were the
basic motivations and assumptions of Robert Moses and his planning for New York? How do
Moses and Jacobs represent two divergent approaches to the revitalization of New York?
2.
What were the problems with the 19th Century industrial city, and how did planning (and the
garden city) arises in response to it?
3.
How did the City Beautiful Movement react to the perceived dangers and cultural problems of the
early modern, heterogeneous mass urban society? What are the Modernist roots of planning
process and urban design? What was the past that the Modernists were rejecting? Was this
Modernism the source of many 20th Century failures of urban planning?
4.
How should planners intervene? Should we plan big/comprehensive or small/incremental? Are
planners neutral technicians or engaged advocates? Is there one common public interest? To
whom are planners loyal? (Ethical dilemmas)
Analysis and Critique of a Planning or Zoning Board Meeting
Suggested length: 4 pages [you may turn in this assignment anytime during the semester before November 25]
You are to attend a meeting of a planning agency and write up an analysis of the session. You may choose a planning
board or commission, a zoning board, an historic preservation board, a transportation commission, or any similar
public meeting dealing primarily with city, county or regional planning issues.
The locale is up you: you could choose Minneapolis, Mankato, Owatonna, Duluth or any other place of interest. You
may find it helpful to attend the meeting with several other students.
Your paper should include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cursory background information date and place of meeting; the type of planning agency; the community's
size, location and social-economic profile and how these factors might shape planning issues;
The meeting's format, including structure of agenda and length of meeting; the board's composition (e.g.,
affiliation if known, gender, race); profile of audience, etc.
a summary of the issues covered (You need not give a run-down of all 17 agenda items down to a variance
approval for a two-car garage. Instead, provide a brief overview on the types of issues, with a bit more
discussion on the few most interesting topics.)
MOST IMPORTANTLY: an analysis and critique of the meeting's process. For example: How effective was
the meeting? How "democratic" did the process appear? How much citizen participation was involved? How
did the board respond to the public? What was the role of the staff planners in the meeting? Did it appear
that decisions were actually being made at the meeting, or that the real decisions had already been made
behind closed doors? How did the board deal with controversy? What was the language used in the
meeting: planner's jargon or layperson's English? Did you see any ideas from planning theory (e.g.,
comprehensive vs. incremental planning, equity and advocacy planning, communicative-based action vs.
technocratic planning) reflected in the proceedings? If the meeting was remarkably boring, what might be
the reason? and so forth. (This is the core section of the assignment, and should be the main focus of your
writing efforts.)
Final Paper
You are required to write an analytical paper that applies your knowledge of decision theory (planning theory) to a
past or present planning intervention at the local level. Your paper must focus on an actual planning decision such as
a comprehensive or district plan, a redevelopment or public work project, a planning process, a planning study report,
or a program, policy, or a set of regulations. Your paper should provide background information on the specific
planning intervention, and answer the following questions:
Which decision theory are planners using? Why? Explain.
How would each of the decision theories we have discussed in the course approach the problem or issue
that is being addressed by the planning intervention? Discuss how the planner would approach the problem
or issue using each of the following decision theories: rational- comprehensive, advocacy, communicative
action, strategic planning and incrementalism
Identify and discuss one or more ethical dilemmas created by the planning intervention. How would you
resolve the identified ethical dilemma(s)?
What decision theory would you use in planning the situation you are studying? Why? You should consider
the decision theories outlined in question #2. You can develop your own decision theory, if you believe that
existing theories (on their own) are inadequate.
You may have to conduct historical research (if the decision is from the past) or field work (if the decision is
contemporary). Use our classroom discussion as well as the course readings to support and inform your analysis
The final paper should be approximately 10 pages in length. It is worth 25% of your final grade and is due in class on
November 25
All assignments are due on the assigned date. Please note that late papers will be
accepted, but partial credit will be applied to any papers turned in late after the due
date. The late penalty for the assignments can be waived only with a good excuse.
MSU provides students with disabilities reasonable accommodation to participate in
educational programs, activities or services. Students with disabilities requiring
accommodation to participate in class activities or meet course requirements should
first register with the Office of Disability Services, located in 0132 Memorial Library,
telephone 389-2825, TDD 711 and then contact me as soon as possible.
Plagiarism:
The use of another person’s ideas or work without proper acknowledgement is
tantamount to intellectual dishonesty and will not be encouraged. In your written
assignments, please give full credit when you quote. Also, indicate to the reader when
you have adopted an idea from, or been strongly influenced by another thinker or
source. Ignorance is no excuse!
SCHEDULE
Week 1: August 25
Introduction to the Course:
Course requirements and highlights
 Individual introductions
 Course overview and requirements
AICP Exam: Topics & Readings
Week 2: September 1: No class
Week 3: September 8
What is planning theory?
Theories of Urban Development
 Ernest Burgess Concentric Theory
 Homer Hoyt Sector Theory
 Harris and Ullman Multiple Nuclei Theory
 Walter Christaller Central Place Theory
Class exercise: 5%
Readings
1. Readings in Planning Theory, pp. 1-17
2. Planning Theory for Practitioners, pp. 21-31
3. Hall, “The City of Theory”
Week 4: September 15
The History of Planning in the US
 History of the Planning Profession
 Key planning figures
 Significant planning movements
 History of comprehensive and regional planning
Video: “New York: A Documentary History” (PBS)
Readings:
1. Readings in Planning Theory, pp. 23-102
Week 5: September 22
Arguments for and Against Planning
Readings:
 Heather Campbell and Robert Campbell and Robert Marshall” in Readings in
Planning Theory, pp. 111-128
 Planning Theory for Practitioners, pp. 35-47
Class exercise (5% of final grade)
Week 6: September 29
Theories of planning practice: Rational-Comprehensive Planning
Readings:
1. Planning Theory for Practitioners, pp. 80-105
2. Banfield, “Ends and Means in Planning”
3. Altshuler, “The Goals of Comprehensive Planning”
Class exercise (5% of final grade)
Week 7: October 6
Theories of planning practice: Incremental; Advocacy; Mixed Scanning; Transactive;
Radical and Communicative
Readings:
1. Planning Theory for Practitioners, 99-114
2. JAPA symposium, “Paul Davidoff and Advocacy Planning in Retrospect”
3. Readings in Planning Theory, pp. 153-233
4. Innes, “Planning Through Consensus Building”
5. Hudson, Barclay (1979) “Comparison of current planning theories; counterparts
and contradictions.” Journal of the American Planning Association (October)
Week 8: October 13
Citizen Participation
Readings:
 Klein, William R. (2000) “Building consensus.” In Hoch, Charles J. Linda C. Dalton
and Frank S, So. Eds. The Practice of Local Government Planning. Third Edition.
(Washington D.C. ICMA)
Week 9: October 20
Quiz: MSU Mankato
Week 10: October 27
Plan Making
Readings:
 Hoch, Charles J. (2000) “Making Plans.” In Hoch, Charles J. Linda C. Dalton and
Frank S, So. Eds. The Practice of Local Government Planning. Third Edition.
(Washington D.C. ICMA)
Week 11: November 3
Planning Ethics
Class presentation
Readings:
 Readings in Planning Theory, pp. 439- 444
 Planning Theory for Practitioners, pp. 62-75
Week 12: November 10
Negotiation and Coalition Building
Class presentation
Week 13: November 17
Intergovernmental Relations---Guest Speaker
Reading:
Reed, B. J. (1994) “Intergovernmental Relations” from Banovetz, James M., Drew A.
Dolan and John W. Swain (Eds.) Managing Small Cities and Counties: A Practical Guide.
(Washington D.C.: International City/County Management Association)
Week 14: November 24
 Revision
Week 15: Dec. 1
 Final Examination: MSU Mankato