DEPARTMENT OF CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING
UNC-CHAPEL HILL
PLAN 704: PLANNING THEORY
T/Th 2:00-3:15
Bingham 101
Fall 2013
Instructor: Mai Thi Nguyen
Office: New East 313
Office Hours: Wed 2-3pm or by appointment
Phone: 919.962.4762
Email: [email protected]
Course website: sakai.unc.edu
Course Introduction: This course offers an overview of the classic and contemporary theories that have shaped
thinking within the field of city and regional planning. Many of these theories address public sector planning issues,
such as local planning and governance processes, the role of the planner, how power and inequality shape planning
and public policy outcomes, and normative planning goals, such as justice and equity. The main emphasis of this
course will be on theories relating to the process of planning with some attention paid to substantive theories.
Course Objective: This course will introduce first year Master’s of City & Regional Planning students to the
fundamental theories relevant to the field of city and regional planning that provide insight into the contemporary
dilemmas, challenges, and planning possibilities within the profession. Students are expected to become familiar
with core theories within the discipline and contrast how different theories have the potential to address key
planning and policy issues. Students will be able to identify how theory guides (or fails to guide) planning practice
and research.
Class Format: Classes on Tuesdays will consist of lectures by the instructor. Each Thursday, students will be
assigned to pose five discussion questions on themes and topics found in the assigned reading material for
Thursday. Students will post these questions by noon the Wed. before Thursdays class on Sakai. These questions
will the basis for discussion on Thursday. Thursdays will also be dedicated to student presentations when needed.
Required Text:
Brooks, Michael. 2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.
Selected Readings:
On Sakai course site
Assignments:
Seminar Questions (1-2 sessions based on class size):
Thoughtful In-Class Participation:
Take Home midterm exam:
Local Case Study:
Synthesis Paper:
Final Exam:
10%
10%
20%
20%
20%
20%
1
READING SCHEDULE
Week 1:
(Aug. 20): Introduction to planning theory
Introduction, Course Description, Syllabus, and Assignments
What is planning theory?
(Aug. 22): Planning problems are “wicked”
 Brooks, Michael. 2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago, IL: Planners Press. Pgs. 21-49.
 Rittel, Horst and Melvin Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in A General Theory of Planning.” Policy
Sciences 4: 155-169.
Optional:
Campbell, Scott and Susan F. Fainstein. 1996. “Introduction: The Structure and Debates of
Planning Theory,” In Readings in Planning Theory, edited by Scott Campbell and Susan F. Fainstein.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Pgs. 1-14.
Friedman, John. 1987. “The Terrain of Planning Theory.” In Planning in the Public Domain: From
Knowledge to Action, edited by John Friedman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pgs. 19-48.
Week 2
(Aug. 27): Public Interest
 Brooks, Michael. 2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago, IL: Planners Press. Pgs. 50-61.
 Sandercock, Leonie and Kim Dovey. 2002. Pleasure, Politics, and the “Public Interest”:
Melbourne’s Riverscape Revitalization. Journal of the American Planning Association Spring 68(2): 151164.
Aug. (29): What happens when you have a fractured public interest?
 Bollens, Scott. 2005. “Urban Planning and Intergroup Conflict: Confronting a Fractured Public
Interest” In Dialogues in Urban and Regional Planning 1, edited by Bruce Stiftel and Vanessa Watson.
London and New York: Routledge.
Week 3:
(Sept 3): Rational planning
 Brooks, Michael. 2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago, IL: Planners Press. Pgs. 81-96.
 Alexander, Ernest R. 1984. “After Rationality, What?” Journal of the American Planning Association
(Winter): 37-43.
 Flyvbjerg, Bent. 1996. “Rationality and Power.” In Readings in Planning Theory, edited by Scott
Campbell and Susan F. Fainstein. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Pgs. 318-329.
2
(Sept 5): Is the rational model still useful in planning? How?
 Dalton, Linda. 1986. “Why the Rational Paradigm Persists—The Resistance of Professional
Education and Practice to Alternative Forms of Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research
5(3): 147-53.
Week 4
(Sept 10): Advocacy planning
 Brooks, Michael. 2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago, IL: Planners Press. Pgs.107-118.
 Davidoff, Paul. 1965. "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning," In Readings in Planning Theory, edited
by Scott Campbell and Susan F. Fainstein. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Pgs. 210-223.
(Sept 12): What’s the difference between Davidoff’s and Krumholz’s advocacy planning?
Which type of advocacy planning has had a greater impact in the field of planning?
 Krumholz, Norman. 1982. “A retrospective view of equity planning: Cleveland 1969-1979.” Journal
of the American Planning Association (Spring): 136-152.
Optional:
Krumholz, Normal. 1999. “Equitable approaches to local economic development,” In Readings in
Planning Theory, edited by Scott Campbell and Susan F. Fainstein. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers. Pgs. 224-236.
**Topic for Local Case Study – 1-page description – due**
Week 5
(Sept 17): Centralized Planning
 Howard, Ebenezer. 1965 (first published 1898). Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Cambridge: MIT
Press. Chs 1 &13 (Pgs. 50-57 & 151-159).
 Le Corbusier. 1974. Towards a New Architecture. New York: Praeger Publishers. Ch. 3 (Pgs. 43-62).
Optional:
Olmsted, Frederick Law. 1971. Civilizing American Cities: Writings on City Landscapes by
Frederick Law Olmsted, edited by S.B. Sutton. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Pgs. 1-98.
Fishman, Robert. 1996. “Urban Utopias: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le
Corbusier.” In Readings in Planning Theory, edited by Scott Campbell and Susan F. Fainstein.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Pgs. 21-60.
(Sept 19): What are Jane Jacobs’s main critiques of centralized plans and are they valid?
 Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books. Chs.
1, 2, 8, & 21 (Pgs. 3-25, 29-41, 152-161, 405-427).
3
Week 6:
(Sept. 24): View in class & be prepared to discuss: “The Pruitt Igoe Myth” (~54 min)
(Sept. 26): The role of urban design and planning
 Campanella, Thomas. 2011. Jane Jacobs and the Death and Life of American Planning. Planning
Magazine.
Week 7:
(Oct. 1): Communicative Planning Theory
 Brooks, Michael. 2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago, IL: Planners Press. Pgs. 119-133.
 Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pgs. 107-119, 119-136, & 137-162.
Optional:
Innes, Judith. 1996. “Planning through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive
Planning Ideal.” Journal of the American Planning Association 62: 125-137.
Kaufman, Jerome. 1990. Forester in the Face of Planners: Will They Listen to Him? Planning Theory
Newsletter (Winter): 27-33.
Hoch, Charles. 1994. “Ch 7: Negotiations and the Bottom Line” in What Planners Do: Power, Politics
& Persuasion. Chicago, Il: Planners Press.
(Oct. 3): Is Communicative Action planning always appropriate?
 Rahder, Barbara. 1999. “Victims No Longer: Participatory Planning with a Diversity of Women at
Risk of Abuse.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 18 (3): 221-232.
 Tauxe, C. 1995. “Marginalizing Public Participation in Local Planning: An Ethnographic Account.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (4): 471-481.
Week 8:
(Oct. 8): The Just City
 Fainstein, Susan F. 2010. The Just City. Ithaca, NY and London, England: Cornell University Press.
Chs 1 & 2, pp. 23-86.
Optional:
 Thomas, June M. 1998. “Racial inequality and empowerment: Necessary theoretical constructs for
understanding U.S. planning history.” In Making the Invisible Visible: A Multicultural Planning
History, edited by Leonie Sandercock. Berkeley: University of California Press.
 Sandercock, Leonie. 2003. “Mongrel cities: How can we live together?” in Cosmopolis II: Mongrel
Cities in the 21st Century. London and New York: Continuum Press. Pgs. 85-105.
4
(Oct. 10): MIDTERM EXAM
Week 9:
(Oct. 15)
View before class & be prepared to discuss: “Holding Ground: the Rebirth of Dudley Street”
(~58 min)
 The Enterprise Foundation. 2000 “Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, Roxbury, MA - Case
study from On the Ground with Comprehensive Community Initiatives.” Columbia, MD:
Enterprise Foundation.
(Oct. 17): Race, class, and power were key factors shaping Dudley Street’s revitalization.
What about the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative can be replicated in other places?
 Medoff, Peter and Holly Skylar. 1994. “Creating the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative” in
Streets of Hope: The Fall and Rise of an Urban Neighborhood. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Pgs. 37-66.
Week 10:
(Oct. 22): Values & Ethics
 Brooks, Michael. 2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago, IL: Planners Press. Pgs. 62-75.
 Lucy, William. 1996. “APA’s Ethical Principles Include Simplistic Planning.” In Readings in Planning
Theory, edited by Scott Campbell and Susan F. Fainstein. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Pgs.
413-417.
Optional:
Barret, Carol. 2001. Everyday Ethics for Practicing Planners. APA Press. Pgs. 8-9, 11-27, & 203-207.
(Oct. 24): Is Ethical Behavior Truly Extraordinary?
 Baum. Howell. 1998. Ethical Behavior is Extraordinary Behavior: It’s the Same as All Other
Behavior,” Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (4): 411-423.
Week 11:
(Oct. 29 & 31) Local Case Study Presentations & Paper (Paper Due on Nov. 7)
Week 12:
(Nov. 5) Planning & Politics –
 Brooks, Michael. 2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago, IL: Planners Press. Pgs. 9-19 & 97106.
 Albrechts, Louis. 2003. “Reconstructing Decision-Making: Planning versus Politics.” Planning
Theory 2(3) 249-268.
 Sanyal, Bishwapriya. 2005. “Planning as Anticipation of Resistance.” Planning Theory 4(3): 225-245.
5
Optional:
Molotch, Harvey. 1976. “The City as a Growth Machine.” American Journal of Sociology 82(2): 309332.
(Nov. 7): Should a planner be as apolitical as possible?
 Hoch, Charles. 1994. What planners do: Power, politics, and persuasion. Chicago, IL: Planners
Press. Pgs. 45-74.
Week 13:
(Nov. 12) Markets and Planning
 Richardson, Harry W. and Peter Gordon. 1993. “Market planning: oxymoron or common sense?”
Journal of the American Planning Association 59(3): 347-352.
 Banerjee, Tridib. 1993. “Market planning, market planners, and planned markets.” Journal of the
American Planning Association 59(3): 353-360.
Optional:
Moore, Terry. 1978. “Why allow planners to do what they do? A justification from economic
theory.” Journal of the American Planning Association 44(4): 387-398.
Feldman, Marshall M.A. 1987. “What kind of economics for what kind of planning? (Commentary)
Journal of the American Planning Association 53(4): 427-429.
(Nov. 14): Congestion Pricing: Using market mechanisms or just more planning?
 Victoria Transport Policy Institute. July 2008. “Congestion Pricing, Value Pricing, Toll Roads, and
HOT Lanes” http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm
 Case Study of Orange County, California: http://www.cfit.gov.uk/map/northamerica-usacalifornia-oc.htm
Week 14:
Nov. 19: New Urbanism
 Grant, Jill. 2006. Planning the Good Community, New Urbanism in Theory and Practice. London
and New York: Routledge. Chs 1-3. Pgs. 10-78.
 Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. 2000. Suburban Nation: The Rise of
Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press. Pgs. 3-37.
Nov. 21: Does New Urbanism deliver on its promises? A closer look at Southern Village.
 Earnhardt, Jim. 1995. “New Urbanism in Planning” Carolina Planning Journal 22(2):20-27.
6
 Bressi, Todd. 2002. The Seaside Debates: A Critique Of The New Urbanism. New York: St.
Martin’s Press. Pgs. 41-58.
Week 15:
Planning Theory/Practice Gap: Does the gap still exist?
Review for Final Exam
(Nov. 28): Thanksgiving Holiday – no class
Week 16:
(Dec.3): In Class FINAL EXAM
**Synthesis Paper Due the date of scheduled Final Exam**
7
OTHER ACADEMIC BUSINESS
The Honor Code:
“The Honor Code represents UNC-Chapel Hill students' commitment to maintain an environment in which
students respect one another and are able to attain their educational goals. As a student at Carolina, you are entering
a community in which integrity matters--integrity in the work you submit, and integrity in the manner in which you
treat your fellow Carolina community members.” http://newstudents.unc.edu/content/view/24/77/
I am committed to treating Honor Code violations seriously and urge all students to become familiar with its terms set out at
http://honor.unc.edu/honor/code.html. If you have questions it is your responsibility to ask the professor about the Code’s
application. All written work, and other projects must be submitted with a signature that you have complied with the
requirements of the Honor Code in all aspects of the submitted work.
Contacting the professor:
I encourage you to contact me before or after class and during office hours. I also encourage you to inform me beforehand if
you are unable to attend class or fulfill an assignment rather than after the fact. I am more willing to make accommodations
legitimate excuses if I am told beforehand. When emailing, please do not expect a prompt reply.
Missing Class:
Students are permitted to miss class for EXCUSABLE absences only (for details about what an excused absence is, see UNCChapel Hill’s attendance policy below). On the first day of class, each student starts with a 100% for participation. Students
are allowed one UNexcused absence without any questions from the instructor. If a student has two UNexcused absences,
their participation grade will be deducted 10% (from 100% to 90%, for example). With each additional absence, a student’s
participation grade will be deducted 10% per absence. I abide strictly by the university’s attendance policy, so please be familiar
with it.
Laptops and cell phones:
Please turn off your cellphones before entering class. If you must have your phone on during class because of an extraordinary
circumstance (wife expecting a baby, etc.), please let me know beforehand. Laptops are permissible only for note taking. You
must turn off all other programs including web browsers, emails, instant messaging, etc. If you are caught doing anything other
than taking notes with the laptops, I will politely ask you stop using your laptop during class time.
Disability: If you have a documented disability that may require assistance, you may need to contact the Academic Services
office that houses the Academic Success Program for coordination in your academic accommodations. Please contact me to
discuss any accommodations that may be required to satisfy your needs.
Resources: My purpose as a professor is to help you to excel in this learning environment. Should you need further assistance
beyond the help of the professor, please consult the following on-campus resources:
The Writing Center: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/
Academic Success Program (for students with learning disabilities (LD) and/or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD): http://www.unc.edu/depts/lds/
Learning Center: http://www.unc.edu/depts/acadserv/learn.html
Counseling and Wellness Services: http://campushealth.unc.edu
8