Page 1 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
UPP 500: History and Theory of Urban Planning
Fall 2010 (Call #: 26919)
Instructor: John J. Betancur (E-mail address: betancur@UIC.EDU)
Class meets: M 6:00 -9:000 p.m. at 2 TH 208
Office hours: Mondays 4:30 – 5:30 or (preferably) by appointment
Brief Description
The course provides an overview of the history and theory of urban planning through selected events and
formulations. Although including elements from other continents that are especially relevant to our
history and theory, the course focuses on the USA. Theories and events are contextualized to understand
their relationship to the systems/structures and circumstances or challenges underlying or accompanying
them. The course stresses the historical nature of theory and planning, correspondences and tensions
between them, the changing nature of planning, and the bottom lines of power, economy, ideology and
choice (ethics). It pays special attention to the relevance and implications of each topic for planning
theory and practice today.
Learning Goals

Demonstrate knowledge of major intellectual and design movements over the past two
centuries as they relate to the emergence and evolution of planning.

Demonstrate knowledge of critical interpretations of past and on-going debates in planning
theory and practice

Demonstrate knowledge of how democratic governance and activity shape roles and
practice of planning
Organization
Each class session is organized around one or two major topics and supported by required and nonrequired readings. It combines student-led exercises/presentations, discussion of readings and the
practice they inform and lectures. Students are encouraged to share their experiences, challenge the
ideas under discussion, explore alternatives, engage in comparative analyses and bring up examples from
their cities of origin or others they are familiar with. They should complete the required readings prior to
class and come prepared to discuss them; questions will be distributed to guide their analyses and
discussion.
Requirements
Class Participation (15 points). Class attendance is required. Participation grade will reflect attendance
and contribution to class activities and dynamics. Students should expect to read at least 100 pages per
session. Please notify absences to the class by posting them in a folder established for this purpose in
blackboard’s discussion board. Should you wish to share a relevant event, source or document with the
class, please post it in the folder created for this purpose (see blackboard, discussion board as well).
Page 2 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
Student-Led Class Exercises (20 points). Each session includes a student-led exercise based on the
readings and addressing the core topic(s) of the day. Please go to blackboard, discussion board, back-up
folder and sign up for a date of your choice (slots are honored on the basis of ‘first come, first served’).
There will be a maximum of two presenters per session. For your presentations, please prepare a brief
summary of the readings for distribution in class, and lead a 40 minute exercise illustrating the respective
topic (possibly including visual illustrations, short documentaries, relevant cases, role playing, group
discussions or else). Also, please share with instructor your plan for the class ahead of time.
Papers (50 points). Two papers required, one on theory and one on history. The former should focus on
events/movements/plans with a particular impact on planning. The latter on a theory or topic of
significant importance. Papers should include background, presentation, and discussion. Background
refers to historical moment or circumstances; presentation is the actual description of the theory, plan or
event selected; and analysis is an examination of the topic identifying legacy, strengths, shortcomings, or
else. Paper should flow as in a story; should not exceed 8 double spaced pages, font 12 and include at
least six sources (preferably academic). Due dates: 6th and 12th weeks. Please consider visiting Prof.
Campbell’s web page for advise on academic writing, on writing papers on urban theory and others:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Scott+Campbell+and+professor&FORM=IGRE1#focal=96e5f2ca0
c2fecf9c9f28a3a0beef1d8&furl=http%3A%2F%2Fwwwpersonal.umich.edu%2F~sdcamp%2Fimages%2FMoleculeManRiverSpreeBerlin.jpg
Report on Readings/Postings (15%). Starting in the second session, participants will write and post a brief
essay on readings for at least six sessions of their choice; essay should include a brief description of issue
followed by a brief analysis and comments on the usefulness of the particular theory or event examined in
the reading. Professor will provide questions that participants can use for their essays/postings. Each
posting should address at least two of the readings for the session chosen.
Final Grade
The course uses a ten-point scale: 91-100 = “A”; 81-90 = “B”; 71-80 = “C”; etc.
Required Readings
Readings from these books will not be posted. Other required readings will be posted in blackboard.
Scott Campbell and Susan Feinstein, Eds. 2003. Readings in Planning Theory. Cambridge, Mass and
Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers.
Peter Hall. 2002. Cities of Tomorrow. Third Edition. Oxford, U.K. and Malden, Mass: Blackwell.
Recommended books
Françoise Choay. 1969. The Modern City: Planning in the 19th Century. New York: George Braziller.
John D. Fairfield. 1993. The Mysteries of the Great City. The Politics of Urban Design, 1877-1937.
Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
John Friedman. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
David Harvey. 2002. Spaces of Capital, Towards a Critical Geography. New York: Routledge.
Page 3 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
Michael Kenny and James Meadowcroft. 1999. Planning Sustainability
Richard LeGates and Frederick Stout, Eds. 2001. The City Reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Seymour, J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza and Robert W. Burchell, Eds. 2000. Explorations in Planning Theory.
New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers.
Lloyd Rodwin and Biswapriha Sanyal. 2000. The Profession of City Planning. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for
Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
Mary Corbin Sies and Christopher Silver. Planning the Twentieth-Century American City. Baltimore and
London: The John Hopkins University Press.
Henri Lefebvre. 1996. Writings on Cities. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA: Blackwell Publishers.
Page 4 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
UPP 500: History and Theory of Planning
Class Topics and Schedule of Readings
Session One (August 23)
Introduction: On Theory and History: History of Theory and Theory of History Defining
Planning Theory and Planning History. Syllabus and Course Logistics
Overviews of history and theory imply a selection of events, theories and actors while leaving others out.
In the end, they privilege certain messages and views that indoctrinate or inspire planners. How much
should we rely on these accounts? How much attention should we pay to the untold? Practitioners often
hold negative attitudes about theory and academics insist on the importance of history and theory. Do we
need to study planning theory and history? What is the role of history and theory in urban planning? How
do these theories and histories define planning? Why plan? How much of city building is actually
planned?
Readings
*1 Scott Campbell and Susan Feinstein. 1998. "Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning
History." Pp. 1-20.
* John F. Fairfield. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-13. The Mysteries of the Great City.
* John Friedman. 1987. “Two Centuries of Planning Theory: An Overview.” Pp. 11-29 in Planning in the
Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mary Corbin and Christopher Silver. 1996. "The History of Planning History" and “Planning History and the
New American Metropolis.” Pp. 1-34 and 449-75 in Planning the Twentieth-Century American City.
Bob Klosterman. “Arguments for and Against Planning.” Pp. 86-101 in Campbell & Feinstein.
Henri Lefebvre. “Industrialization and Urbanization.” Pages 65-85 in Writings on Cities translated by
Eleanor Kofman and Elizabeth Lebas. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA: 1996.
Session Two (August 30)
Foundations of Twentieth-Century Planning
City planning is about as old as the city. Practices and guiding ideologies have varied across times and
spaces. They have also influenced each other through historical encounters of all sorts. The European and
North American experiences are only one of many traditions in city building. Although drawing primarily
on European traditions, urban planning in the USA has been influenced by other forces, other cultural
encounters, and other events. To study the legacy of pre-urbanism and the transition to urbanism, this
section looks at European practices in the early stages of capitalism and the ways in which they shaped
Western urban planning legacies. Along the way it discusses the forces that shaped US cities.
A. Pre-Urbanism and Urbanism
Readings
Page 5 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
* Richard Sennett. 1994. “Moving Bodies, Harvey’s Revolution,” and “Individualism, E.M. Foster’s
London.” Pp. 255-81 and 317-54 in Flesh and Stone, the Body and the City in Western Civilization. New
York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.
* Françoise Choay. 1969. “Pseudurbias and Reduced Behavior,” Preurbanism and Urbanism: The
Progressist Model,” and “Pre-Urbanism and Urbanism: The Culturalist Model.” Pp. 27-32 and 97-110 in
The Modern City: Planning in the 19th Century. New York: George Braziller.
B) Birth and Nature of Rational Planning
Two forces confluence in the 19th Century to shape planning, modernity/rationality and the Industrial
Revolution. “Reason meant trust in the capacity of the mind to grasp the orderly processes of nature and
society, and to render them intelligible to us.” (Friedman 1987: 3) The Revolution produced a city of
smokestacks, wealth, pollution, and … urban chaos. The city was the problem and planning the solution.
Drawing on scientific principles, it tried to build an art and a science that could operate objectively in the
direction of human affairs… This session examines the emergence of a scientific planning model and the
nature of rational planning.
Readings
* Alan Black. 1990. “The Chicago Area Transportation Study: A Case Study of Rational Planning.” Journal of
Planning Education and Research 10, 1: 27-37.
* John Friedman. "Introduction" and "The Terrain of Planning Theory." Pp. 3-15 and 19-48.
* Peter Hall 1999. “Cities of Imagination” Pp.1-12 in Cities of Tomorrow. Oxford, U.K. and Malden, Mass:
Blackwell Publishers.
Françoise Choay. 1969. “The Critical Order,” “Regularization”. Pp. 7-27
September 7 (Labor Day): No class
Session Three (September 13)
The contending proposals of Planning, Laissez Faire, Laissez Passer, and Social Reform. Cities
of Commerce and Industry.
Slums, pollution and deep class differences accompanied the industrial and commercial city. Proposals to
address these included reform, urban planning, and socialism/anarchism. “Practical” solutions came in
the form of suburbia, town planning, zoning, mass transit, and housing codes; they constituted some of
the early tools of urban planning. Other interventions assumed the form of philanthropic initiatives and
social movements.
Readings
* Fairfield. 1993. “An Urban Republic: Frederick Olmsted, Henry George and the City Building Debate”
and “The Political Economy of Suburbanization and the Politics of Space”. Pp. 15-83.
* Peter Hall. Chapters 2 & 3: "The City of Dreadful Night" and "The City of By-Pass Variegated." Pp. 13-47
and 48-86.
Page 6 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
* Pocyga, Dominic. 1997. “Chicago’s 1919 Race Riot: Etnicity, Class, and Urban Violence.” Pp. 187-207 in
The Making of Urban America edited by Raymond A. Mohl. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources.
Jon C. Teaford. 1993. “The Century Begins, 1900-1919” and “Promises Thwarted: The Twenties.” Pp. 7-43
in The Twentieth Century American City. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins.
Mona Domosh. 1996. "New York and Boston in the First Half of the 19 th Century" and “Conclusion." Pp. 734 and 155-158 in Invented Cities, The Creation of Landscape in 19th Century New York and Boston. New
Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Session Four (September 20)
Early Urban Utopias and ‘Movements’: City Beautiful, City Social and Civic Improvement
Dreamers and Reformers set to the task of designing the ideal city. Among them were garden cities and
cities in the park that made their way to America. The City Beautiful impressed visitors to the 1992
Columbian exposition and led the initial drive to shape cities through partial or comprehensive
interventions such as the Burnham Plan for Chicago. Relationships were established between physical
environment and moral character, between ethics and aesthetics, between ideology, social control and
planning practice. In contrast with them, the City Social advanced the causes of the poor, workers,
families and children.
Readings
* Robert Fishman. Chapter 1: "Urban Utopias: Ebenezer Howard and Le Corbusier." Pp. 21-60 in Campbell
and Feinstein.
* Peter Hall. “The City in the Garden” and “The City of Monuments.” Pp. 87-141 and 187-217.
* William H. Wilson. "The Glory, Destruction and Meaning of the City Beautiful Movement." Pp. 68-102 in
Campbell and Feinstein. First Edition.
* Susan M. Wirka. Chapter 2, "The City Social Movement." Pp. 55-75 in Sies and Silver.
Michael H. Lang. "The Design of Yorkship Garden Village, Product of the Progressive Planning,
Architecture, and Housing Reform Movements." Pp. 120-144 in Sies and Silver.
Richard L. LeGates and Frederic Stout. 2000. “Modernism and Early Planning, 1870-1940.” Pp. 299-313 in
The City Reader. London and New York: Routledge.
John A. Peterson. Chapter 1, Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.: The Visionary and
the Professional." Pp. 37-54 in Sies and Silver.
Session Five (September 27)
The Regional Planning Movement. The New Deal and Soviet Planning. Newer Urban Utopias
(Le Corbusier and Wright). Structuring Urban Planning (e.g. The Port of New York Authority).
The Urban Ecology Paradigm
Regional Planning had a major impact on suburbanization and comprehensive planning; it tied the city to
its contours and influenced Roosevelt’s New Deal Planning. Events such as the Russian revolution, the
Page 7 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
Great Depression and the New Deal brought planning to the forefront. New ‘utopias’ (Radiant City and.
Broadacre) reflect these calls offering frameworks of physical design and social engineering. The School
of Chicago offered a ‘scientific’ theoretical framework that influenced planning thought and practice for
most of the 20th century especially in the USA. National, state, regional and local levels engage in a
division of planning functions.
Readings
* Jameson W. Doig. 1996. "Coalition-Building by a Regional Agency: Austin Tobin and the Port of New
York Authority." Pp. 409-40 in Campbell and Feinstein. First Edition.
* Robert Ezra Park. “Human Ecology.” Pp. 45-57 in New Perspectives on the American Community, A Book
of Readings. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
* Peter Hall. "The City in the Region." Pp. 142-187.
* Frank Lloyd Wright. 2000. “Broadacre City: A New Community Plan.” Pp. 344-49 in LeGates and Stout.
Robert B. Fairbanks. "Planning, Public Works, and Politics: The Trinity River Reclamation Project in
Dallas." Pp. 187-212 in Sies and Silver.
Jon C. Teaford. “An Interlude in Urban Development, 1930-1945. Pp. 74-96.
Briton Harris. “The Comprehensive Planning of Location.” Pp. 255-268 in Planning Theory in the 1980s, A
Search for Future Directions edited by Robert W. Burchell and George Sternlieb. New Brunswick, NJ:
Center for Urban Policy Research.
Session Six (October 4)
City Practical and Professionalization of City Planning
Deeply embedded in modern rationality, ideas such as progress, value free interventions, efficiency and
order shaped a model of scientific planning that included professionalization and establishment of an
organized field of inquiry. At the same time, planning practice and theory seem to proceed along parallel
tracks. Rational planning has its setbacks, controversies and adjustments. This session examines the
rational and institutional project of planning and the profession of planning: its intent, practical
limitations, and possibilities.
Readings
* John D. Fairfield. 1993. "From Rapid Transit to City Planning: Social Efficiency and the New Urban
Discipline,” The Professionalization of City Planning and the Scientific Management of Urban Space." Pp.
83-157.
* Peter Hall. Chapter 10, "The City of Theory." Pp. 352-77.
* David Harvey. 1996. Chapter 8, "On Planning the Ideology of Planning." Pp. 176-97 in Campbell and
Feinstein. First Edition.
* Charles Lindblom. 2003. Chapter 10, "The Science of Muddling Through." Pp. 196-209 in Campbell and
Feinstein.
Page 8 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
Greg Hise. “Homebuilding and Industrial Decentralization in Los Angeles.” Pp. 240-261 in Mary Corbin Sies
and Christopher Silver.
Session Seven (October 11)
Post War suburbanization, crisis of the central city, urban sprawl and the fragmented
metropolis.
Urban analysis usually is often about urban crisis. From the beginning, city and countryside entered into
uneasy relationships reflected in planning discussions and proposals; the ideal of ‘community lost’
permeated urban discussions as well. These and other themes stay around shaping our thought of cities
and our planning approaches. From wealthy residential areas through workers’ towns, to suburbia,
exurbia and sprawl, planning goes back and forth between the city and the anti-city, the city and the
suburb, this and that particular form … Do these dialectics reflect inner contradictions of market society?
Do they correspond to a fluent reality always reorganizing itself? Does it reflect dialectics between power,
discourse and practice? This session covers such debates and planning responses.
Readings
* Peter Hall. “The City on the Highway.” Pp. 294-351.
* Robert Fishman. “Beyond Suburbia: The Rise of the Technoburb.” Pp. 77-87 in The City Reader edited by
LeGates and Stout.
* Lefebvre, Henri. 1996. “No Salvation away from the Centre?” and “The Urban Question.” Pp. 201-202 in
Writings on Cities. Oxford, UK and Cambridge: Blackwell.
* Sharpe, William and Leonard Wallock. 1997. “Bold New City or Built-up Burb? Contemporary
Suburbia.” Pp. 309-31 in The Making of Urban America edited by Mohl, Raymond A. Wilmongton, DE:
Scholarly Resources.
John C. Teaford. “Suburbia Triumphant, 1945-1964” and “An Age of Urban Crisis, 1964-1979.” Pp. 97-126
and 127.
Session Eight (October 25)
Planning as Social Reform and Planning as Public Policy. The Issue of Poverty
Post war expectations, Civil Rights and other social reforms of the 1960s emphasized social change and
public participation. Although these calls are not new and Progressive Era proposals addressed them, they
gained enough force at this point to emerge as legitimate components of planning. Along with them,
public policy becomes a major endeavor and bottom-up and participative models enter conversations,
demands and accepted practices.
Readings
* John Friedman. 1987. "Planning as Social Reform" and "Planning as Policy Analysis.” Pp. 87-136 and
137-180.
Page 9 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
* Chester W. Hartman. 1979. “Social Planning and the Political Planner.” Pp. 73-82 in Planning Theory in
the 1980s, A Search for Future Directions edited by R.W. Burchell and G. Sternlieb.
* James Jennings. “Persistent Poverty in the United States: Review of Theories and Explanations.” Pp. 1338 in A New Inroduction to Poverty: The Role of Race, Power and Politics edited by Louis Kushnick and
James Jennings. New York and London: New York University Press.
* Sherry Arnstein. 2000. “A Ladder of City Participation.” Pp. 240-252 in The City Reader, Second Edition,
edited by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Strout. London and New York: Routledge.
Peter Hall. “The City of the Permanent Underclass.” 361-400.
Jerome L. Kaufman. “The Planner as Interventionist in Public Policy Issues.” Pp.179-200 in Planning Theory
in the 1980s, A Search for Future Directions.
Session Nine (November 1)
Criticisms and Paradoxes of Planning. Postmodernism
Criticisms of rational planning ranging from the practical to the theoretical assumed center stage since the
1960s. Some authors claim that planning should incorporate different life styles and choices; others
continue emphasizing social control and the needs of accumulation. Critical authors argue that regime
change leads to the reinvention of the city. Proponents of a new school of thought argue that cities like
Chicago are to Fordism what others like Los Angeles are to post-Fordism. Meanwhile, the debate on the
role of planning continues, in this case exacerbated by neo-liberal and neo-conservative doctrines.
Readings
* Susan Christopherson. 1994. Chapter 14, "The Fortress City: Privatized Spaces, Consumer Citizenship."
Pp. 409-427 in Ash Amin’s Post-Fordism. A Reader.
* P. Hall. 1999. “The City of Sweat Equity” and “The City of Enterprise.” Pp. 262-93 and 378-403.
* David Harvey. 1994. Chapter 12. "Flexible Accumulation through Urbanization: Reflections on 'PostModernism' in the American City." Pp. 361-386 in Post-Fordism. A Reader edited by Ash Amin. Oxford, UK
and Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell Publishers.
* Jane Jacobs. 1996. Chapter 4, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities." Pp. 61-74 in Campbell and
Feinstein.
Edward Soja. 2000. “Taking Los Angeles Apart: Towards a Post-Modern Geography.” Pp. 180-92 in The City
Reader edited by R.T, LeGates and F. Stout. New York and London: Routledge.
John Fairfield. Chapter 7, "Urbanism as a Way of Life: The Paradox of Professional Planning." Pp. 225240.
Philo C, 1992, "Foucault's geography" Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 10(2): 137– 61.
Cliff Ellis. Chapter 11, "Professional Conflict over Urban Form: The Case of Urban Freeways: 1930-1970."
Pp. 262-282 in Pp. 225-240 in Mary Corbin Sies and Christopher Silver.
Page 10 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
Session Ten (November 8)
Advocacy and Equity Planning
This session addresses some of the proposals emerging from criticisms of “scientific” and top-down, or
“objective” approaches to planning. Although democratic and progressive forces always questioned these
approaches to planning, their voices had been largely ignored until the 1960d, 70s and 80s. The session
discusses proposals to get the poor and disenfranchised to the table or to, at least, represent their
interests. They range from institutionalized processes and figures such as ombudsmen to “up from the
bottom” approaches including participatory action research and community revolt… Some critics,
however, consider these approaches paternalistic and suppressing of the voices of the powerless…
Readings:
* Paul Davidoff. Chapter 12, "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning." Pp. 210-23 in Campbell and Feinstein,
Eds. Also, Pp. 428-433 in The City Reader edited by LeGates and Stout.
* Frances Fox Piven. 1970. “Whom Does the Advocate Planner Serve?” Social Policy 1, 1: 32-37.
* Norman Krumholz. 1996. “A Retrospective View of Equity Planning: Cleveland 1969-1979” or “Equitable
Approaches to Local Economic Development.” in Campbell and Feinsten.
* Robert Mier, Kari Moe and Irene Sherr. “Strategic Planning and the Pursuit of Reform, Economic
Development, and Equity.” Pp. 72-90 in Social Justice and Local Development Policy. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Tony Schuman and Elliot Sclar. 1996. “The Impact of Ideology on American Town Planning: From the
Garden City to Battery Park City.” Pp. 428-448 in Sies and Silver.
Session Eleven (November 15)
Planning and Politics. The Market and the Public Arena.
Planning has gone back and forth between free-market models arguing that the best planner is the hidden
hand of the market and proposals of regulation and redistribution seeking to incorporate classes and
groupings political economies underlying the market disadvantage. Some authors, meanwhile, have
advanced proposals seeking different mixes of market and planning. With flexible accumulation, the
private sector has increased commodification and privatization tremendously producing increasingly
fragmented and polarized metropolises. This session studies the challenges and planning proposals of
neoliberalism.
Readings:
* Iain Begg. 1999. “Cities and Competitiveness.” Urban Studies 36, 5-6: 795-809.
* Susan Christopherson. 1994. “The Fortress City: Privatized Spaces, Consumer Citizenship.” Pp. 409-427
in Ash Amin.
* Alexander Garvin. 2000. “A Realistic Approach to City and Suburban Planning” and “Ingredients of
Success.” Pp. 396-409 in LeGates and Stout.
Page 11 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
* Evan McKenzie. 1994. “From Garden City to Privatopia.” Pp. 1-28 in Privatopia. New Heaven and
London: Yale University Press
* Oren Yiftachel. 1998. “Planning and Social Control: Exploring the Dark Side.” Journal of Planning
Literature 12, 4 (May): 395-406.
Charles E. Connerly. 1996. “Federal Urban Policy and the Birth of Democratic Planning in Birmingham,
Alabama, 1949-1974.” Pp. 331-358 in Sies and Silver Op. Cit.
John Friedman. “The Recovery of Political Community.” Pp. 343-388.
John Hancock. “’Smokestacks and Geraniums:’ Planning and Politics in San Diego.” Pp. 161-186 in
Planning the Twentieth Century City edited by Sies and Silver.
Michael P. Brooks. “Planning and Political Power: Toward a Strategy for Coping.” Pp. 116-133 in
Explorations in Planning Theory edited by Seymour Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza and Robert W. Burchell.
New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Session Twelve (November 22)
Class, Race, Gender and other factors of Diversity in Planning
Under the guise of value-free scientific objectivity, planning assumed or claimed that public interventions
lifted all boats. Although critics questioned the accuracy of these claims through the years, the voices of
race, class, gender, sexual orientation, disability and others spoke of biases. Critical theory and
postmodernism raised the most serious criticisms demanding models and approaches that included their
voices. How much has planning responded?
Readings:
* Teresa Cordova. 1994. “Refusing to Appropriate: the Emerging Discourse on Planning and Race.” Journal
of the American Planning Association 60, 2 (Spring).
* Eugene Grisby. “In Planning There is no such a Thing as Race-Neutral Policy.” Journal of the American
Planning Association 60, 2 (Spring).
* Hayden, Dolores.2003. “Nurturing Home, Mom and Apple Pie.” Pp. 376-400 in Campbell and Fainstein.
* Robert Mier. 1994. “Some Observations on Race in Planning,” Journal of the American Planning
Association 60, 2 (Spring).
* Richard Peet with Elaine Hartwick. 1999. “Feminist Theories of Development.” Pp.163-194 in Theories
of Development. New York and London: The Guilford Press.
* Richard Sennett. 1994. “Civic Bodies, Multicultural New York.” Pp. 355-376 in Flesh and Stone, the Body
and the City in Western Civilization. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.
John J. Betancur and Douglas C. Gills. 2000. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-15 in The Collaborative City:
Opportunities and Struggles for Blacks and Latinos. New York and London: Garland Publishing.
Leonie Sandercock and Ann Forsyth. “Feminist Theory and Planning Theory: The Epistemological
Linkages.” Pp. 471-474 in Campbell and Feinstein.
Page 12 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
Leonie Sandercock and Ann Forsyth. “A Gender Agenda: New Directions for Planning Theory.” Pp. 446-462
in The City Reader edited by LeGates and Stout.
Session Thirteen (November 29)
A. Reclaiming Scientific Planning. Recent Trends and Debates (Sustainable Development, New
Urbanism and Smart Growth)
Following criticisms of the rational model by postmodernists and activists, some authors have tried to
reconcile both positions. Meanwhile, calls for sustainable development further modified the field of
planning. How did planning integrate these issues to its work? Other recent efforts in these directions
include new urbanism and smart growth –proposals and criticisms.
Readings
* Scott Campbell. 2003. “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions
of Sustainable Development.” Pp. 435-58 in Campbell and Fainstein.
* Andreas Faludi. “Rationality, Critical Rationalism and Planning Doctrine.” Pp. 65-82 in Explorations in
Planning Theory edited by Mandelbaum, Mazza and Burchell.
* Patsy Healey.2003. “The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and Its Implications for Spatial Strategy
Formation.” Pp. 237-258 in Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein.
* International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Smart Growth Network. N.D. Getting to
Smart Growth. http://www.epa.gov/piedpage/getting_to_sg2.htm
* James A. Throgmorton. 1996. “Impeaching Research: Planning as Persuasive and Constitutive
Discourse.” Pp. 345-364 in Explorations in Planning Theory edited by Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi
Mazza and Robert W. Burchell. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.
Robert A. Beauregard. “Between Modernity and Postmodernity: The Ambiguous Position of U.S.
Planning.” Pp. 213-233 in Planning Theory edited by Campbell and Feinstein.
Frank Fisher. “Risk Assessment and Environmental Crisis: Toward an Integration of Science and
Participation.” Pp. 485-506 in Planning Theory edited by Campbell and Feinstein.
B: Planning and Ethics
Readings
* William H. Lucy. 2003. “APA’s Ethical Principles Include Simplistic Planning Theories.” Pp. 479-484 in
Planning Theory edited by Campbell and Feinstein. Pp. 413-17.
* John Forester. 1996. “Learning from Practice Stories: The Priority of Practical Judgment.” Pp. 507-528 in
Planning Theory edited by Campbell and Feinstein. First Ed.
* Seymour J. Mandelbaum. 1996. “Ethical Mandates and the Virtue of Prudence.” Pp. 430-447 in
Explorations in Planning Theory edited by Mandelbaum, Mazza and Burchell.
Page 13 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
* Peter Marcuse. 1976. “Professional Ethics and Beyond: Values in Planning. Journal of the American
Institute of Planning 42, 3.
David Harvey. 1996. “Introduction” and “Possible Urban Worlds.” Pp. 1-18 and 403-438 in Justice, Nature
and the Geography of Difference. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Session Fourteen (December 6)
A. Globalization from above and from below: Analytical Frameworks, Proposals and
Challenges
Followign globalization, authors developed new urban frameworks and proposals with critical impacts on
city planning: anti-globalization, globalization from below and the race for global status.
Readings
* David Harvey. “Postmodernism in the City: Architecture and Urban Design.” Pp. 66-98 in The Condition
of Postmodernity. Cambridge and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
* Paul L. Knox. 1995. “World Cities in a World System.” Pp. 3-20 in World Cities in a World System.
Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press.
* Richard Peet. 1999. “Critical Modernism, Radical Democracy, Development.” Pp. 195-210 in Theories of
Development. New York and London: The Guilford Press.
Martin Boddy. 1999. “Geographical Economies and Urban Competitiveness: A Critique.” Urban Studies
36, 5-6: 811-842.
John Friedman. 1995. “The World City Hypothesis.” Pp. 317-331.
(b) Hard Questions on the Theory-Practice Debate, Normative Theory and the Future Of
Planning
* Nicolai SteinØ. 2003. “Urban Design: Between Theory and Practice.” The Project Welfare City.
Aaalborg, Denmark: School of Architecture and Design. (Originally presented at the AESOP/ACP
Conference, Leuven, Belgium, July 8-12.
* Ahmed Baha’El-Deen Abukhater. “Rethinking Planning Theory and Practice: A Glimmer of Light for
Prospects for Integrated Planning to Combat Complex Urban Realities.” Theoretical and Empirical
Research in Urban Management 2, 11 (May): 64-79.
* Bent Flyvbjerg. “Power has a Rationality that Rationality does not Know.” Pp. 225-35 in Rationality and
Power: Democracy in Practice. (Translated by Steven Sampson). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
C. Democracy and Planning: A Summary and A Conclusion
*Amin, Ash and Nigel Thrift. 2003. “The Democratic City.” Pp. 131-56 in Cities: Reimagining the Urban.
Cambridge, Oxford and Maden: Blackwell.
* Susan Feinstein and Norman Feinstein. “City Planning and Political Values: An Updated View.” Pp. 265287 in Planning Theory edited by Campbell and Feinstein.
Page 14 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
Questions for Postings
Session One
(1) Which forces shaped cities? Did the same forces shape urban/metropolitan planning?
(2) What is the Hamiltonian vision of planning, what does it think about the masses and how
does it relate to system maintenance/social control?
(3) Why is there disagreement about planning theory and planning priorities?
Session Two
(1) What does rational mean in rational planning? Black presents the process of rational
planning that corresponds with this paradigm and its application by CATS in Chicago. Friedman
examines the main postulates of “rational planning.” Once you identify what rational means,
choose one of its major claims vis-à-vis urban planning (objectivity, ability to predict the future,
ability to go, ability to manipulate/shape the future, ability to reduce the city to a few variables
that can be controlled as in a lab experiment, superiority of rational over other know ledges and
experiences…) and analyze it.
(2) Identify the definitions of planning included in today’s readings and choose among them
explaining why you find that particular one most appropriate.
(3) How does the idea and practice of planning relate to that of healthy cities?
Session Three
(1) Nature of early suburbanization; who benefitted from it? Who was shortchanged? Did it
resolve the issues of central city congestion and “slum” housing?
(2) What explains the difference between European and American approaches to housing the
poor? How similar and how different were their assessments of the issues of poverty and lowincome housing? Why were they different?
(3) What were the roles of commuter railroads, zoning and working-class housing? What were
their main benefits and detriments? Did they play a role in segregation/social separation?
Session Four
(1) What is the main core/assumptions/ideal of what a city should be of the Garden City or the
Radiant City and how useful you find it in inspiring urban planning?
(2) Please contrast realism and utopia and suggest what has urban planning gained from them
(3) According to Mumford, “Howard was much less interested in physical forms than in social
processes (Hall 2002: 93). What do you think about this assessment particularly as it relates to
what happened with the garden city?
(4) What legacy did either the Garden City or the Radiant City left for Planning in the USA?
(5) Perhaps the most celebrated planning proposal/approach in the USA has been the City
Beautiful Movement. How would you describe the approach to planning represented in that
“movement” and what do you consider its main contributions?
Page 15 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
Session Five
(1) What do you learn from the style of planning and politics leading to New York Port’s
Authority? What did you learn from it? What would you do differently (if)?
(2) How helpful is the ecological paradigm as a guide to urban planning? What type of approach
does it advocate?
(3) What are the justifications for regional planning? Would you rather do urban or regional
planning? Why yes, no or both?
Session Six
(1) For Fairfield the organization of government on a residential basis gave the private sector
control over the economy, largely removing the possibility of redistribution as a major public
function: what do you think about this? Could government be organized on a different basis?
Still, government seems to play a major role vis-à-vis the economy… Was Fairfield wrong in his
appreciation of politics?
(2) Fairfield contrasts municipal reform with political machine… Please develop the argument
and analyze his claim… What is the case here? He also contrasts urban with moral reformers…
What are the bases of this? What is the implication of the outcome in favor or moral reformers?
(3) Did zoning (as per Mumford) formalize segregation and social exclusion? Do current changes
in zoning improve on this to the point that we can argue that if this was the case at the
beginning, it is no longer the case? (4) Is there a clash between practice and theory in planning?
What can be the roots of it? What is the situation today? How would a healthy relationship
between the two look like? What do you think about Lindblom’s criticisms of rational planning?
Does his analysis take sides in favor of practice and against theory? What do you think about his
proposal of incrementalism in planning/policy-making?
(4) What are your thoughts about advocacy planning? Does it truly bring to the table the
interests of those left out? (5) How would you compare Harvey’s and Lindblom’s criticisms of
planning? Are they both giving up on the possibilities of planning that works for social change?
Session Seven
(1) What may have caused the second major urban crisis after WWII? How much of a role did
the economic model of growth, the War, government or the anti-urban ideology play in this
crisis? What kind of “solution” suburbanization represents? How much of an impact it had on
planning?
(2) Does the future lie with the technoburb and the technocity? Do these concepts bode well
with the Regional Planning Association’s ideal of the city-region? Does the multi-polar
technocity provide a better environment than the downtown-centered metropolis?
(3) The private seems to have overwhelmed the public and it may be a matter of time before
local government is privatized. Is this a desired urban future? How much of a solution do
common interest developments and gated communities offer?
(4) Lefebvre views great potential with urban life and what he calls the “urban revolution.” This
implies reconstruction of cities around social relations of use value, democracy and cooperation.
What do you think about this? Is this a post-modern utopia? What would be the implications for
city building?
Page 16 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
Session Eight
(1) Discuss Friedman’s criticisms of the rational model to social policy as well as his statement,
“None of these planning institutions have delivered, perhaps, all that their originators dreamed
they might. Perhaps they have not made the world more perfect. But to say this is not to write
them off as failures.”
(2) Friedman claims that policy analysis clothed policy analysis in a “mantle of science.” What is
he implying? What do you think about this? (3) For him, action is a major alternative to decision
theory that leads to planning models with two elements in common: “(a) they are not
specifically addressed to the ruling elites and (b) they focus on actions rather than on decisions.”
How do you assess this proposal?
(3) How does Wirka’s “city social” compare to “city beautiful’ and ‘city practical’?
(4) For Davidoff all plans and public interventions have redistributive impacts that should be
identified and addressed. What do you think about this proposal?
(5) Hartman adds that “Social planning skills and activities should be put at the disposal of
communities, organizers and political activists, and the social planner ideally should see
him/herself as part of that organizing process and change movement.” (82) What do you think
about the planning model and “social planner” he envisions?
Session Nine
(1) Jacobs proposed a bottom up method to urban planning guided by “how cities work in real
life” and defined as “the adventure of probing the real world.” She argues that urban decline is
not inevitable and that where planners see slums, others see livability and urban vitality. Please,
provide a brief assessment of this approach and statements? (2) Geddes proposes that planners
work around people’s self-constructed environments and actually learn from them. Turner
views “barriadas” as solutions rather than problems. How applicable are these insights from
self-help to the USA?
(3) Compare Jacob’s and Geddes/Turner views.
(4) Harvey points to the differential impact of today’s regime on working and middle classes. He
further argues that capitalism has moved from managerialism to entrepreneurialism. Please
summarize his claims and explain how regime shift has changed the nature of urban planning…
or has it?
(5) Christopher describes design today as oriented to the management of space around the
priorities of safety, social control, and separation of people. Referring to this as “the fortress
character of urban development,” she claims that the social polarization resulting from regime
shift has lead to increased social tension and a generalized sense of danger that cities are
addressing via gating, cameras in public places, increased police powers and ordinances against
loitering, gatherings of youth groups in public places, beggars, and homeless. What do you make
of this?
(6) Lastly, Hall argues that the field of planning has been turned upside down and inside out. In
what way? What does this mean for urban planning?
Session Ten
(1) Davidoff argues that “the planner should do more than explicate the values underlying his
prescription; he should affirm them; he should be an advocate for what he deems proper.” Is
Page 17 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
this a break with rational planning or a different form of rationality? He proposes that the
planner should be an advocate and a coordinator and should use persuasion as the main tool:
how do you assess this proposal? Fox Piven, meanwhile, argues that advocacy planning
sanctions the disempowered condition of the poor? What would Davidoff respond to her?
(2) Patsy Healey identifies five directions of planning. Please select, and analyze one. For her,
knowledge is created through interaction; we need “to work out what rules or codes of conduct
we can agree we need to allow us to live together but differently” Finally, she argues that
planning is about changing situations and about inventing democracy? Please analyze these
proposals.
(3) Krumholz ran a planning department that focused on expanding opportunities for those
lacking them.” In doing this, he found out that professionalism, quiet disagreement, close
cooperation and shared confidence helped advance this agenda… How much do you identify
with this line of planning? How realistic would it be say for today’s Chicago?
Session Eleven
(1) What do all these readings have in common when addressing the issue of race in planning?
Use examples to discuss the relevance of their claims.
(2) Are gender and sexual orientation issues important in planning? Using the discussions of the
readings on these matters, assess the importance of race and sexual orientation in planning
(3) What have been/are the impacts of race-neutral planning?
Session Twelve
(1) Fainstein and Fainstein argue that each planning approach corresponds to a political theory.
How do you assess this statement? They add that, differently from Europe, planning and policymaking in the US have been dominated by business interests and that the government has acted
as umpire of the political marketplace, indeed just another actor. Please analyze this claim and
its implications.
(2) Garvin proposes that a combination of realistic expectations and involvement of people with
the ability to make plans happen is the key to good planning. How does this bode for any
attempts at social change? Is this the criteria you would advocate for urban planners and policy
makers?
(3) Reviewing Progressive Era experiences on direct democracy and political debate, Amin and
Thrift argue that conversion of active citizen to professional client and consumer moved the
country from participatory to consumerist democracy. For democracy to return to its roots,
they add, we need to revisit and engage in experiences such as those of the Progressive Era.
How would you asses this analysis? Are these authors are engaging in unwarranted nostalgia for
the past? How important is democracy to planning?
(2) Thrift and Amin proclaim Lefebvre’s focus on a “right to the city” approach to local planning
and politics, Flyvbjerg’s suggestion that “the normative discussion should shift from deliberation
planning to politics, from issues of good planning practice to actions to democratize existing
institutions and practices” (p. 139) and Sen’s call for building democratic capacity among the
masses as critical elements for a redirection of planning towards production of a society of
deliberation, engaged democracy and true political citizenship and planning. What do you think
of these suggestions today?
Page 18 –UPP 500 Prof. Betancur
(3) Christopher argues that planning and policy in the US have been hijacked by consumption
burying possibilities such as citizen- or rights-centered planning. Is this true? Is it hopeless?
(4) Smith and Low call for a re-examination of the politics of public space. How, they ask, can we
have a democracy in which spaces for spontaneous citizen interaction are run like spaces of
danger and in which the public lacks the means to organize itself apart from the consortium of
government and the private sector? Is this an inevitable contradiction that planning has to
accept? Should we just say with Brzezinski that society cannot afford the democracy of the
1960s and that citizen responsibility prevails over citizen rights? Discuss this in the context of
planning today.
Session Thirteen
(1) How can theory and practice learn from each other? Is there a role for ethics and values in
planning? How can we reconcile values and ethics with sciences?
Session Fourteen
(1) Begg discusses the concept of competitiveness that has become one of the pillars of urban
planning recently. Based on his arguments, please analyze this concept and its centrality to
planning.
(2) Peet carries out a critical analysis of economic development theories suggesting the need to
move into “critical Modernism.” Please explain briefly what it is and whether or not it
convinced you about the shortcomings of the orthodox model of development –in this case
applied to urban planning.
(3) Friedman presents an update and overview of the World System paradigm of cities that he
actually proposed in 1982. Do you believe that cities operate in such a hierarchical way in their
networking or, as Taylor argues, it is far more nuanced, flexible, and perhaps horizontal? What
type of planning does this paradigm inform?
(4) For Harvey, the market removes ethics and social goals imposing functional dynamics in
which it dictates what can and cannot be built. You may compare his analysis with Beg’s or may
discuss his view vis-à-vis ethics and values as discussed in the previous session.
(5) Describe and analyze the relation power-rationality as discussed by Flyvbjerg. (2) Steinø
claims that planning has focused on process while pretending to ignore normativity that, in his
view, is at the core of planning. What do you think about this? (6) Abukhater looks at various
forms of separation and division of work in planning arguing that they render planning less
effective as it breaks the urban into pieces that belong together. He proposes a path to new
models of comprehensive planning. Briefly describe
that path and react to it.
1
Required readings are indicated by an asterisk