RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
34:970:501:02 HISTORY AND THEORY OF PLANNING
Wednesday, 9:50 - 12:30 Civic Square, Room 369
OFFICE HOURS: Monday, 2-4 p.m., or by appointment
CUPR, Civic Square Bldg., Room 483
Robert W. Lake
Spring 2011
phone: 732-932-3133 x521
e-mail: rlake@rutgers.edu
INTRODUCTION and OVERVIEW
One of the core requirements for the MCRP degree at the Bloustein School is that you complete a
course in the history and theory of planning. The American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) tests
your knowledge of the history and theory of planning in its exam certifying you as a professional
planner. So this is a course in the “History and Theory of Planning.” Beyond that, nothing is very clear.
That is because the meaning, significance, and content of the terms “history” and “theory” are in much
dispute. There is no one history or theory of planning on which everyone agrees. There can be many
different histories of the same period, people or events, depending (among other things) on who is
doing the telling and whose history is being told. Is planning history about those doing the planning or
those affected by the plan? Who decides what to include and what is left out? Is planning history a
history of the development of the profession, a history of planning practice, a history of ideas about
what planning should be, or all of the above? Or is planning history about the evolution of planning
theories and, if so, which theories should it include? Are these theories of planning (theories about
what planning is or should be) or theories in planning (theories that planners use to do their work)?
This course explores these questions by placing planning history and theory in the context of their
times. Planning—whether practice or theory—does not take form in a vacuum, disconnected from
everything else going on at the time. The theory and practice of planning reflect, and sometimes
influence, what is going on in the wider world of which they are a part. This much seems obvious. But
the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when planning emerged as a formally institutionalized and
professionalized activity, were dynamic, exciting, and often dangerous times, encompassing mass
industrialization, rapid urbanization, massive economic restructuring, frequent wars, vast intellectual
ferment, scientific breakthroughs, technological advancements, political realignments, social and
cultural transformations, global migrations, and much, much more.
We will seek to understand planning by asking how it arose in the midst of this ferment and how
planning reflects the ambitions, contradictions, and challenges of the times. We will ask, in particular,
how the practice of planning emerged within—and contributed to—prevailing ideological commitments
to the project of modernism, defined as a belief in the possibility of progress and the application of
scientific and technological knowledge to social and economic problems—what James C. Scott, in
Seeing Like a State (1998), called “the rational design of social order commensurate with the scientific
understanding of natural laws.”
What can we learn by understanding the theory and practice of planning as contained within, and
informed by, the project of modernism? Planning has embodied both the promise and the challenges of
modernism, producing debates that continue to occupy planning theorists and practitioners alike. If
planning advances the possibility of progress, how is progress best achieved—through large-scale
visionary designs or small incremental change? If planning seeks solutions to social and economic
2
problems, how is a commitment to collective (i.e., public) problem-solving reconciled with liberal
individualism and free-market ideology? If planning entails the application of science to problemsolving, how is planning’s technical expertise aligned with local knowledge and the view from the
street? Is planning a practice of science or of politics, and can it be both? Perhaps most importantly,
does planning decide the answers to these questions (and others) or are the answers decided
elsewhere and, if so, by whom and through what process? The ways these questions have been
answered in particular times and places constitute the history and theory of planning that will engage us
over the semester.
OBJECTIVES
By the end of the semester, students should be able to:
 Evidence their familiarity with the major debates in planning history and theory.
 Situate the theory and practice of U.S. planning in the context of broad historical trends.
 Identify and discuss reasons for divergence between what planning is and what planning should be.
 Establish their individual identity as planners within the range of possibilities comprising the history
and theory of the field.
EXPECTATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
1. Reading and active participation in seminar discussions [30%].
This is a graduate-level seminar, in which each seminar member shares responsibility to actively
participate in the teaching and learning that we accomplish in class each week. Active participation
requires:
 regular class attendance;
 completing the assigned readings in full in advance of each week’s meeting; and
 engaging with other seminar members in the respectful and constructive exchange of
thoughts and ideas.
2. Completion of five written reflection papers (3-5 pages each) discussing and evaluating the
assigned readings [40%].
You may select readings for any five weeks during the semester as the subject of your reflection
papers—but you must submit five essays prior to the last class meeting. Guidelines for preparing
reflection papers will be distributed at the first class meeting. Your essays should not merely
summarize the readings; rather, they should offer a critical assessment of, and engagement with,
ideas or issues in the readings. Papers are due at the beginning of the class session in which the
reading is assigned and discussed. Late papers will not be accepted. Reflection papers must be
typed, double-spaced, in 12-point font and must conform to professional standards of grammar,
punctuation, and citation format.
3. Participation in one of five in-class debates on critical issues in planning history and theory [30%].
In week 2 (January 26th), students will sign up to participate in one of five in-class debates on key
issues in planning history and theory—four students per topic, with two students speaking on each
side of the debate. Each student will make a 5-10 minute presentation advocating their side in the
debate, followed by a 2-minute rebuttal, followed by class discussion and critique of the
presentations. Within one week following each debate, participating students will submit an 8-10
page written paper discussing their debate topic. Students may (and should) work collaboratively
3
in preparing for the in-class debate but each student must submit an individual written paper. Inclass and written presentations can draw from class readings and discussions but will necessarily
require reference to additional academic and professional readings and resources.
Topics and Dates for in-class debates are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Styles of Planning: Large-scale Visions vs. Incremental Planning
Justifications for Planning: Regulation vs. Markets
Planning Knowledge: Technical Expertise vs. Local Contextuality
The Planner’s Perspective: Top-down vs. Bottom-up Planning
Objectivity in Planning: Planning as Science vs. Planning as Politics
February 9
March 2
March 23
March 30
April 20
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Plagiarism, cheating, or any other form of academic dishonesty will not be tolerated and will result in a
grade of ‘F’ or zero (0) for the assignment in question. Please familiarize yourself with the University’s
policy on academic integrity at http://academicintegrity.rutgers.edu/
REQUIRED READINGS
The following required text is available at the Rutgers Bookstore (Ferren Deck):
Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein, eds. 2003. Readings in Planning Theory, 2nd edition. Oxford:
Blackwell. [Listed as C&F in the Class Schedule below]
All other required readings in the Class Schedule will be posted on the class Sakai site.
4
CLASS SCHEDULE AND READINGS
January 19
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW: What is history? What is theory? What is planning?
What is planning history?
C&F, “Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning Theory,” pp. 1-16.
January 26
SOCIETY, ECONOMY, AND THE CITY IN HISTORY
Raymond Williams. 1973. Ch. 7. “The morality of improvement,”; and Ch. 19. “Cities
of darkness and of light,” in The Country and the City, pp. 60-67 and pp. 215232.
Lewis Mumford. 1961. “Commercial expansion and urban dissolution,” in The City in
History, pp. 410-445.
February 2
HIGH MODERNISM AND THE PROMISE OF SCIENCE
C&F, Ch. 7. James C. Scott, “Authoritarian high modernism,” pp. 125-141.
David Harvey. 1990. Ch. 2, “Modernity and modernism,” in The Condition of
Postmodernity, pp. 10-38.
.
February 9
PLANNING VISIONARIES—“MAKE NO SMALL PLANS”
[IN-CLASS DEBATE: Styles of Planning: Large-Scale Visions vs. Incremental Planning]
C&F, Ch. 1. Robert Fishman, “Urban utopias,” pp. 21-60.
James C. Scott. 1998. “The high-modernist city: an experiment and a critique,” in
Seeing Like a State, pp. 103-146.
February 16
ROBERT MOSES—PLANNING NEW YORK
Robert Caro. 1975. “The meat ax,” in The Power Broker, pp. 837-849.
Kenneth Jackson, “Robert Moses and the rise of New York,” in Hilary Ballon and
Kenneth T. Jackson, eds. 2007. Robert Moses and the Modern City: The
Transformation of New York, pp. 67-71.
Owen Gutfreund, “Rebuilding New York in the auto age,” in Ballon and Jackson,
Robert Moses and the Modern City, pp. 86-93.
Marshall Berman. 1988. “Robert Moses: The expressway world,” in All That Is Solid
Melts Into Air, pp. 290-312.
February 23
PLANNING IN CAPITALIST SOCIETY
C&F, Ch. 5. Robert Fogelsong, “Planning the capitalist city,” pp. 102-107.
David Harvey. 1985. “On planning the ideology of planning,” in The Urbanization of
Capital, pp. 165-184.
David Harvey. 2001. “From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation of urban governance in late capitalism,” in Spaces of Capital, pp. 345-368.
Rachel Weber. 2002. “Extracting value from the city: Neoliberalism and urban
redevelopment,” in Neil Brenner and Nik Theodore, eds., Spaces of
Neoliberalism, pp. 172-193.
5
March 2
PUBLIC PLANNING: REGULATION AND MARKETS
[IN-CLASS DEBATE: Justifications for Planning: Regulation vs. Markets]
C&F, Ch. 4. Richard Klosterman, “Arguments for and against planning,” pp. 86-101.
Herbert Gans. 1968. “The federal role in solving urban problems,” in People and
Plans, pp. 278-302.
Daniel Moynihan. 1966. “Is there really an urban crisis?” Challenge 15: 20-22ff.
David R. Hunter. 1964. “Planning,” in The Slums: Challenge and Response, pp. 239246.
Thomas Sugrue. 2005. “’The coffin of peace:’ The containment of public housing,” in
The Origins of the Urban Crisis, pp. 57-88.
Martin Meyerson and Edward Banfield. 1955. “Planning,” in Politics, Planning and
the Public Interest, pp. 269-283.
Milton Friedman. 2002. “The role of government in a free society,” Capitalism and
Freedom, pp. 22-36.
March 9
March 16
March 23
URBAN RENEWAL
Jewel Bellush and Murray Hausknecht. 1967. “Urban renewal: An historical
overview,” in Urban Renewal: People, Politics and Planning, pp. 3-16.
William Alonso. 1966. “Cities, planners, and urban renewal,” in James Q. Wilson,
ed., Urban Renewal: The Record and the Controversy, pp. 437-453.
Herbert Gans. 1968. “The failure of urban renewal: A critique and some proposals,”
in People and Plans, pp. 260-277.
George Nesbitt. 1949. “Relocating Negroes from urban slum clearance sites.”
Land Economics 25: 275-288.
Susan Fainstein. 2005. “The return of urban renewal.” Harvard Design Magazine 1-5
>>> NO CLASS – SPRING BREAK <<<
PLANNING FROM MODERNISM TO POSTMODERNISM
[IN-CLASS DEBATE: Planning Knowledge: Technical Expertise vs. Local Contextuality]
C&F, Ch. 10, Charles Lindblom, “The science of ‘muddling through,’” pp. 196-209.
C&F, Ch. 3, John Friedmann, “Toward a non-Euclidean mode of planning, pp. 75-80.
C&F, Ch. 6, Robert Beauregard, “Between modernity and postmodernity,” pp. 108124.
Robert Beauregard. 1991. “Without a net: modernist planning and the postmodern
abyss.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 10: 189-194.
Robert Lake. 1992. “Planning and applied geography.” Progress in Human
Geography 16: 414-421.
6
March 30
JANE JACOBS: PLANNING FROM BELOW?
[IN-CLASS DEBATE: Planner’s Perspective: Top-down vs. Bottom-up Planning]
C&F, Ch. 2, Jane Jacobs, “The death and life of great American cities,” pp. 61-74.
Jane Jacobs. 1961. . “The kind of problem a city is,” in The Death and Life of Great
American Cities, pp. 428-448.
Marshall Berman. 1988. “The 1960s: A shout in the street,” in All That Is Solid Melts
Into Air, pp. 312-329.
Lewis Mumford. 1962. “The Sky Line: Mother Jacobs Home Remedies,” The New
Yorker, pp. 148-179.
April 6
April 13
April 20
ADVOCACY PLANNING
C&F, Ch. 11, Paul Davidoff, “Advocacy and pluralism in planning,” pp. 210-223.
C&F, Ch. 12, Norman Krumholz, “Equitable approaches to local economic
development,” pp. 224-236.
John Friedmann. 1998. “The new political economy of planning: The rise of civil
society,” in Mike Douglass and John Friedmann, eds., Cities for Citizens. pp. 1935.
Sherry Arnstein. 1969. “A ladder of citizen participation.” J. of the American
Institute of Planners 35: 216-224.
>>>NO CLASS – AAG CONFERENCE<<<
COMMUNICATIVE/DELIBERATIVE/PARTICIPATORY PLANNING
[IN-CLASS DEBATE: Approaches to Objectivity: Science vs. Politics]
C&F, Ch. 13, Patsy Healey, “The communicative turn in planning theory and its
implications for spatial strategy formation,” pp. 237-258.
C&F, Ch. 15, Howell Baum, “Community and consensus: reality and fantasy in
planning,” pp. 275-295.
C&F, Ch. 17, Bent Flyvbjerg, “Rationality and power,” pp. 318-332.
C&F, Ch. 18, Iris Young, “City life and difference,” pp. 336-355.
C&F, Ch. 23, Frank Fischer, “Risk assessment and environmental crisis: toward an
integration of science and participation,” pp. 418-434.
April 27
`
SUMMARY
C&F, Ch. 9, Susan Fainstein, “New directions in planning theory,” pp. 173-195.
C&F, Ch. 21, Leonie Sandercock, “Towards cosmopolis: utopia as a construction
site,” pp. 401-410.
John Friedmann. 2000. “The good city: In defense of utopian thinking.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24: 460-472.
Neil Brenner, Peter Marcuse, and Margit Mayer. 2009. “Cities for people, not for
profit.” City 13: 176-184.