Home  ›  Negotiation and Settlement Advocacy: a Book of Readings, 2nd Ed.

Negotiation and Settlement Advocacy: a Book of Readings, 2nd Ed.

Written By Thursday, March 3, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Urban planning designs settlements, from the smallest towns to the largest cities. Shown hither is Hong Kong from Western District overlooking Kowloon, across Victoria Harbour.

Planning theory is the body of scientific concepts, definitions, behavioral relationships, and assumptions that ascertain the body of knowledge of urban planning. At that place are nine procedural theories of planning that remain the principal theories of planning procedure today: the Rational-Comprehensive arroyo, the Incremental approach, the Transformative Incremental (TI) approach, the Transactive arroyo, the Communicative approach, the Advocacy arroyo, the Equity approach, the Radical approach, and the Humanist or Phenomenological approach.[ane]

Background [edit]

Urban planning can include urban renewal, past adapting urban planning methods to existing cities suffering from turn down. Alternatively, it can concern the massive challenges associated with urban growth, particularly in the Global South.[2] All in all, urban planning exists in various forms and addresses many different issues.[three] The modern origins of urban planning lie in the motility for urban reform that arose as a reaction against the disorder of the industrial city in the mid-19th century. Many of the early influencers were inspired by riot, which was popular in the plow of the 19th and 20th centuries.[4] The new imagined urban form was meant to go hand-in-manus with a new order, based upon voluntary co-operation within self-governing communities.[4]

In the belatedly 20th century, the term sustainable development has come to represent an ideal consequence in the sum of all planning goals.[v] Sustainable architecture involves renewable materials and energy sources and is increasing in importance every bit an environmentally friendly solution[6]

Pattern planning [edit]

Since at least the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, urban planning had mostly been assumed to be the concrete planning and design of human communities.[seven] Therefore, it was seen equally related to architecture and civil applied science, and thereby to be carried out by such experts.[vii] This kind of planning was physicalist and design-orientated, and involved the production of masterplans and blueprints which would show precisely what the 'finish-country' of state use should be, similar to architectural and engineering science plans.[8] Similarly, the theory of urban planning was mainly interested in visionary planning and design which would demonstrate how the ideal city should be organised spatially.[ix]

Sanitary motility [edit]

Although it tin can be seen as an extension of the sort of civic pragmatism seen in Oglethorpe's program for Savannah or William Penn's plan for Philadelphia, the roots of the rational planning motion lie in United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland's Germ-free movement (1800–1890).[10] During this menstruum, advocates such every bit Charles Berth argued for central organized, peak-down solutions to the problems of industrializing cities. In keeping with the rising power of industry, the source of the planning authority in the Sanitary motion included both traditional governmental offices and private evolution corporations. In London and its surrounding suburbs, cooperation between these two entities created a network of new communities clustered around the expanding runway system.[11]

Garden city movement [edit]

A diagram of Howard'due south planned Social City.

The Garden city movement was founded by Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928).[12] His ideas were expressed in the book Garden Cities of To-morrow (1898).[13] His influences included Benjamin Walter Richardson, who had published a pamphlet in 1876 calling for low population density, good housing, broad roads, an surreptitious railway and for open space; Thomas Spence who had supported common ownership of land and the sharing of the rents it would produce; Edward Gibbon Wakefield who had pioneered the thought of colonizing planned communities to house the poor in Adelaide (including starting new cities separated past green belts at a certain indicate); James Silk Buckingham who had designed a model town with a central place, radial avenues and industry in the periphery; equally well as Alfred Marshall, Peter Kropotkin and the back-to-the-land movement, which had all called for the moving of masses to the countryside.[14]

Howards' vision was to combine the all-time of both the countryside and the urban center in a new environment chosen Town-Country.[15] To make this happen, a group of individuals would establish a express-dividend company to buy inexpensive agricultural state, which would then be adult with investment from manufacturers and housing for the workers.[15] No more than 32,000 people would be housed in a settlement, spread over one,000 acres.[fifteen] Around information technology would be a permanent green chugalug of 5,000 acres, with farms and institutions (such every bit mental institutions) which would benefit from the location.[16] Later reaching the limit, a new settlement would be started, connected by an inter-city track, with the polycentric settlements together forming the "Social City".[16] The lands of the settlements would be jointly owned by the inhabitants, who would use rents received from information technology to pay off the mortgage necessary to buy the land then invest the rest in the community through social security.[17] Actual garden cities were built by Howard in Letchworth, Brentham Garden Suburb, and Welwyn Garden Urban center. The move would also inspire the subsequently New towns motility.[xviii]

Linear city [edit]

Arturo Soria's pattern concept of the Linear city.

Arturo Soria y Mata'southward thought of the Linear city (1882)[19] replaced the traditional idea of the city as a centre and a periphery with the idea of amalgam linear sections of infrastructure - roads, railways, gas, water, etc.- along an optimal line and and so attaching the other components of the city along the length of this line. Every bit compared to the concentric diagrams of Ebenezer Howard and other in the same period, Soria's linear city creates the infrastructure for a controlled process of expansion that joins ane growing city to the next in a rational manner, instead of letting them both sprawl. The linear city was meant to 'ruralize the city and urbanize the countryside', and to exist universally applicable as a ring effectually existing cities, as a strip connecting two cities, or equally an entirely new linear boondocks beyond an unurbanized region.[twenty] The idea was later on taken upward past Nikolay Alexandrovich Milyutin in the planning circles of the 1920s Soviet Marriage. The Ciudad Lineal was a practical application of the concept.

Regional planning movement [edit]

An archetypical example of a Valley Department.

Patrick Geddes (1864-1932) was the founder of regional planning.[21] His chief influences were the geographers Élisée Reclus and Paul Vidal de La Blache, as well as the sociologist Pierre Guillaume Frédéric le Play.[22] From these he received the idea of the natural region.[23] According to Geddes, planning must offset past surveying such a region by crafting a "Valley Section" which shows the general slope from mountains to the ocean that can be identified across scale and place in the world, with the natural surroundings and the cultural environments produced by it included.[24] This was encapsulated in the motto "Survey earlier Programme".[25] He saw cities equally being changed past engineering into more regional settlements, for which he coined the term conurbation.[26] Similar to the garden city motion, he besides believed in adding dark-green areas to these urban regions.[26] The Regional Planning Clan of America advanced his ideas, coming up with the 'regional city' which would have a variety of urban communities across a green mural of farms, parks and wilderness with the assist of telecommunication and the machine.[27] This had major influence on the County of London Programme, 1944.[28]

Metropolis Cute movement [edit]

The Borough Centre Plaza planned (but never realized) in Burnham's plan for Chicago.

The Urban center Beautiful movement was inspired by 19th century European capital cities such as Georges-Eugène Haussmann's Paris or the Vienna Ring Road.[29] An influential figure was Daniel Burnham (1846-1912), who was the main of structure of the Earth'south Columbian Exposition in 1893.[29] Urban problems such every bit the 1886 Haymarket affair in Chicago had created a perceived demand to reform the morality of the metropolis among some of the elites.[30] Burnham'south greatest achievement was the Chicago plan of 1909.[31] His aim was "to restore to the city a lost visual and artful harmony, thereby creating the physical prerequisite for the emergence of a harmonious social order", essentially creating social reform through new slum clearance and creating public space, which also endeared it the support of the Progressivist movement.[32] This was besides believed to be economically advantageous by drawing in tourists and wealthy migrants.[32] Because of this it has been referred to as "trickle-down urban development" and as "centrocentrist" for focusing simply on the core of the city.[33] Other major cities planned according to the motion principles included British colonial capitals in New Delhi, Harare, Lusaka Nairobi and Kampala,[34] [35] likewise as that of Canberra in Commonwealth of australia,[36] and Albert Speer's plan for the Nazi capital Germania.[37]

Towers in the park [edit]

Le Corbusier'southward Plan Voisin (1925) for Paris.

Le Corbusier (1887–1965) pioneered a new urban form called towers in the park. His approach was based on defining the firm every bit 'a machine to live in'.[38] The Plan Voisin he devised for Paris, which was never fulfilled, would accept involved the demolition of much of historic Paris in favour of 18 compatible 700-human foot tower blocks.[39] Ville Contemporaine and the Ville Radieuse formulated his basic principles, including decongestion of the urban center past increased density and open space by building taller on a smaller footprint.[39] Broad avenues should also be built to the metropolis heart by demolishing onetime structures, which was criticized for lack of environmental sensation.[39] His generic ethos of planning was based on the dominion of experts who would "work out their plans in total freedom from partisan pressures and special interests" and that "in one case their plans are formulated, they must exist implemented without opposition".[forty] His influence on the Soviet Marriage helped inspire the 'urbanists' who wanted to build planned cities full of massive apartment blocks in Soviet countryside.[xl] The only city which he ever actually helped program was Chandigarh in India.[41] Brasília, planned past Oscar Niemeyer, likewise was heavily influenced by his thought.[42] Both cities suffered from the issue of unplanned settlements growing outside them.[43]

Decentralised planning [edit]

Wright's sketches of Broadacre Metropolis.

In the United States, Frank Lloyd Wright similarly identified vehicular mobility as a principal planning metric. Motorcar-based suburbs had already been adult in the Country Club Commune in 1907-1908 (including later the globe'due south outset car-based shopping centre of Country Club Plaza), as well equally in Beverly Hills in 1914 and Palos Verdes Estates in 1923.[44] Wright began to idealise this vision in his Broadacre Metropolis starting in 1924, with similarities to the garden city and regional planning movements.[45] The cardinal idea was for applied science to liberate individuals.[45] In his Usonian vision, he described the urban center as

"spacious, well-landscaped highways, grade crossings eliminated past a new kind of integrated by-passing or over- or nether-passing all traffic in cultivated or living areas … Behemothic roads, themselves dandy compages, pass public service stations . . . passing by subcontract units, roadside markets, garden schools, dwelling places, each on its acres of individually adorned and cultivated ground".[46]

This was justified equally a democratic ideal, as ""Commonwealth is the platonic of reintegrated decentralization … many gratis units developing forcefulness equally they larn by function and grow together in spacious mutual liberty."[46] This vision was however criticized by Herbert Muschamp as being contradictory in its call for individualism while relying on the master-architect to blueprint it all.[46]

After Earth State of war II, suburbs similar to Broadacre Urban center spread throughout the United states of america, just without the social or economic aspects of his ideas.[47] A notable example was that of Levittown, built 1947 to 1951.[48] The suburban design was criticized for their lack of form by Lewis Mumford as it lacked clear boundaries, and past Ian Nairn because "Each building is treated in isolation, zilch binds it to the next one".[49]

In the Soviet Matrimony too, the so-called deurbanists (such every bit Moisei Ginzburg and Mikhail Okhitovich) advocated for the utilize of electricity and new transportation technologies (particularly the car) to disperse the population from the cities to the countryside, with the ultimate aim of a "townless, fully decentralized, and evenly populated country".[44] All the same, in 1931 the Communist Party ruled such views as forbidden.[45]

Opposition to blueprint planning [edit]

Throughout both the U.s.a. and Europe, the rational planning movement declined in the latter half of the 20th century.[fifty] The reason for the move's decline was also its strength. By focusing and so much on a pattern by technical elites, rational planning lost touch with the public it hoped to serve. Cardinal events in this decline in the Usa include the demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St. Louis and the national backlash against urban renewal projects, particularly urban throughway projects.[51] An influential critic of such planning was Jane Jacobs, who wrote The Expiry and Life of Great American Cities in 1961, claimed to exist "i of the most influential books in the short history of metropolis planning".[52] She attacked the garden city move because its "prescription for saving the city was to do the urban center in" and because it "conceived of planning as well as essentially paternalistic, if not disciplinarian".[52] The Corbusians on the other hand were claimed to be egoistic.[52] In dissimilarity, she defended the dense traditional inner-city neighborhoods like Brooklyn Heights or Due north Embankment, San Francisco, and argued that an urban neighbourhood required nigh 200-300 people per acre, as well as a loftier net ground coverage at the expense of open space.[53] She also advocated for a variety of land uses and building types, with the aim of having a constant churn of people throughout the neighbourhood across the times of the twenty-four hours.[53] This essentially meant defending urban environments as they were before modern planning had aimed to start irresolute them.[53] As she believed that such environments were substantially self-organizing, her approach was effectively one of laissez-faire, and has been criticized for not being able to guarantee "the evolution of expert neighbourhoods".[54]

The most radical opposition was alleged in 1969 in a manifesto on the New Society, with the words that:

The whole concept of planning (the boondocks-and-country kind at least) has gone cockeyed … Somehow, everything must be watched; nothing must exist allowed simply to "happen." No house can be allowed to exist commonplace in the way that things just are commonplace: each project must exist weighed, and planned, and approved, and only and so built, and only after that discovered to exist commonplace after all.[55]

Some other form of opposition came from the advocacy planning movement, opposes to traditional pinnacle-down and technical planning.[56]

Modernist planning [edit]

Cybernetics and modernism inspired the related theories of rational process and systems approaches to urban planning in the 1960s.[57] They were imported into planning from other disciplines.[57] The systems approach was a reaction to the issues associated with the traditional view of planning.[58] It did non understand the social and economic sides of cities, the complexity and interconnectedness of urban life, likewise as lacking in flexibility.[58] The 'quantitative revolution' of the 1960s also created a drive for more scientific and precise thinking, while the rise of environmental made the arroyo more natural.[59]

Systems theory [edit]

Systems theory is based on the conception of phenomena as 'systems', which are themselves coherent entities composed of interconnected and interdependent parts.[threescore] A city can in this way exist conceptualised every bit a arrangement with interrelated parts of different land uses, connected past transport and other communications.[60] The aim of urban planning thereby becomes that of planning and controlling the system.[61] Similar ideas had been put forward by Geddes, who had seen cities and their regions equally analogous to organisms, though they did not receive much attention while planning was dominated by architects.[61]

The thought of the city as a system meant that it became disquisitional for planners to sympathise how cities functioned.[61] It besides meant that a change to 1 part in a city would have effects on others parts too.[61] There were also doubts raised about the goal of producing detailed blueprints of how cities should look like in the end, instead suggesting the need for more than flexible plans with trajectories instead of fixed futures.[62] Planning should as well be an ongoing process of monitoring and taking activeness in the city, rather than just producing the blueprint at one time.[62] The systems approach also necessitated taking into account the economic and social aspects of cities, across just the aesthetic and concrete ones.[62]

Rational procedure approach [edit]

The focus on the procedural aspect of planning had already been pioneered by Geddes in his Survey-Assay-Programme approach.[63] However, this approach had several shortfalls. Information technology did not consider the reasons for doing a survey in the first place.[63] It also suggested that in that location should be simply a single plan to be considered.[63] Finally, it did non take into account the implementation phase of the plan.[64] There should as well be further action in monitoring the outcomes of the plan later that.[64] The rational process, in contrast, identified five different stages: (1) the definition of problems and aims; (2) the identification of alternatives; (3) the evaluation of alternatives; (4) implementation: (5) monitoring.[64] This new approach represented a rejection of blueprint planning.[65]

Incrementalism [edit]

Showtime in the tardily 1950s and early 1960s, critiques of the rational paradigm began to emerge and formed into several different schools of planning thought. The beginning of these schools is Lindblom's incrementalism. Lindblom describes planning equally "muddling through" and idea that practical planning required decisions to be made incrementally. This incremental approach meant choosing from small number of policy approaches that can only have a small number consequences and are firmly bounded by reality, constantly adjusting the objectives of the planning process and using multiple analyses and evaluations.[66]

Mixed scanning model [edit]

The mixed scanning model, developed by Etzioni, takes a similar, but slightly different approach. Etzioni (1968) suggested that organizations programme on two different levels: the tactical and the strategic. He posited that organizations could accomplish this by substantially scanning the environs on multiple levels and so choose different strategies and tactics to address what they found there. While Lindblom's approach only operated on the functional level Etzioni argued, the mixed scanning arroyo would allow planning organizations to work on both the functional and more big-movie oriented levels.[67]

Political planning [edit]

In the 1960s, a view emerged of planning equally an inherently normative and political activity.[68] Advocates of this approach included Norman Dennis, Martin Meyerson, Edward C. Banfield, Paul Davidoff, and Norton E. Long, the latter remarking that:

Plans are policies and policies, in a democracy at whatever rate, spell politics. The question is not whether planning will reflect politics but whose politics information technology volition reflect. What values and whose values will planners seek to implement? . . . No longer tin the planner accept refuge in the neutrality of the objectivity of the personally uninvolved scientist.[69]

The choices between alternative terminate points in planning was a central issue which was seen equally political.[70]

Participatory planning [edit]

A public consultation event about urban planning in Helsinki

Participatory planning is an urban planning paradigm that emphasizes involving the entire community in the strategic and direction processes of urban planning; or, community-level planning processes, urban or rural. It is often considered as part of community development.[71] Participatory planning aims to harmonize views among all of its participants as well every bit foreclose conflict between opposing parties. In addition, marginalized groups have an opportunity to participate in the planning process.[72]

Patrick Geddes had start advocated for the "real and active participation" of citizens when working in the British Raj, arguing against the "Dangers of Municipal Government from higher up" which would cause "detachment from public and popular feeling, and consequently, earlier long, from public and popular needs and usefulness".[73] Further on, self-build was researched by Raymond Unwin in the 1930s in his Town Planning in Practice.[74] The Italian anarchist architect Giancarlo De Carlo then argued in 1948 that ""The housing trouble cannot be solved from higher up. It is a problem of the people, and it will not be solved, or even boldly faced, except by the concrete will and action of the people themselves", and that planning should exist "every bit the manifestation of communal collaboration".[75] Through the Architectural Association School of Architecture, his ideas caught John Turner, who started working in Peru with Eduardo Neira.[75] He would go on working in Lima from the mid-'50s to the mid-'60s.[76] There he found that the barrios were not slums, but were rather highly organised and well-functioning.[77] As a effect, he came to the conclusion that:

"When dwellers command the major decisions and are free to brand their own contributions in the pattern, construction or management of their housing, both this procedure and the environment produced stimulate individual and social well-being. When people have no control over nor responsibleness for primal decisions in the housing process, on the other paw, dwelling environments may instead become a barrier to personal fulfillment and a brunt on the economy."[78]

The role of the government was to provide a framework within which people would be able to work freely, for example by providing them the necessary resources, infrastructure and land.[78] Self-build was after once again taken upward past Christopher Alexander, who led a project called People Rebuild Berkeley in 1972, with the aim to create "self-sustaining, self-governing" communities, though it ended upwardly being closer to traditional planning.[79]

Synoptic planning [edit]

After the "fall" of blueprint planning in the tardily 1950s and early 1960s, the synoptic model began to emerge every bit a dominant force in planning. Lane (2005) describes synoptic planning equally having four fundamental elements:

"(1) an enhanced emphasis on the specification of goals and targets; (2) an emphasis on quantitative analysis and predication of the environment; (iii) a concern to identify and evaluate alternative policy options; and (four) the evaluation of ways against ends (page 289)."[80]

Public participation was first introduced into this model and it was generally integrated into the system process described above. Still, the problem was that the idea of a single public interest nonetheless dominated attitudes, effectively devaluing the importance of participation because information technology suggests the thought that the public interest is relatively easy to find and just requires the most minimal class of participation.[lxxx]

Transactive planning [edit]

Transactive planning was a radical break from previous models. Instead of considering public participation equally a method that would exist used in add-on to the normal grooming planning process, participation was a central goal. For the get-go fourth dimension, the public was encouraged to take on an agile role in the policy-setting process, while the planner took on the role of a distributor of information and a feedback source.[80] Transactive planning focuses on interpersonal dialogue that develops ideas, which will be turned into action. One of the central goals is mutual learning where the planner gets more information on the customs and citizens to become more educated about planning problems.[81]

Advancement planning [edit]

Formulated in the 1960s by lawyer and planning scholar Paul Davidoff, the advocacy planning model takes the perspective that there are large inequalities in the political system and in the bargaining process betwixt groups that result in big numbers of people unorganized and unrepresented in the process. It concerns itself with ensuring that all people are as represented in the planning process by advocating for the interests of the underprivileged and seeking social modify.[82] [83] Again, public participation is a central tenet of this model. A plurality of public interests is assumed, and the role of the planner is substantially the 1 every bit a facilitator who either advocates directly for underrepresented groups directly or encourages them to get part of the procedure.[80]

Radical planning [edit]

Radical planning is a stream of urban planning which seeks to manage development in an equitable and customs-based mode. The seminal text to the radical planning move is Foundations for a Radical Concept in Planning (1973), by Stephen Grabow and Allen Heskin. Grabow and Heskin provided a critique of planning as elitist, centralizing and alter-resistant, and proposed a new paradigm based upon systems change, decentralization, communal social club, facilitation of human development and consideration of ecology. Grabow and Heskin were joined past Head of Department of Town Planning from the Polytechnic of the South Bank Shean McConnell, and his 1981 work Theories for Planning.

In 1987 John Friedmann entered the fray with Planning in the Public Domain: From Cognition to Action, promoting a radical planning model based on "decolonization", "democratization", "self-empowerment" and "reaching out". Friedmann described this model as an "Agropolitan development" paradigm, emphasizing the re-localization of primary production and industry. In "Toward a Non-Euclidian Mode of Planning" (1993) Friedmann further promoted the urgency of decentralizing planning, advocating a planning paradigm that is normative, innovative, political, transactive and based on a social learning approach to knowledge and policy.

Bargaining model [edit]

The bargaining model views planning equally the consequence of giving and take on the part of a number of interests who are all involved in the process. It argues that this bargaining is the best fashion to deport planning within the bounds of legal and political institutions.[84] The most interesting part of this theory of planning is that information technology makes public participation the central dynamic in the decision-making process. Decisions are made kickoff and foremost by the public, and the planner plays a more than minor role.[lxxx]

Communicative approach [edit]

The chatty approach to planning is mayhap the most hard to explain. It focuses on using communication to assistance different interests in the process to understand each other. The idea is that each individual will approach a conversation with his or her ain subjective experience in listen and that from that conversation shared goals and possibilities will emerge. Again, participation plays a central role in this model. The model seeks to include a broad range of vocalization to raise the debate and negotiation that is supposed to form the core of actual program making. In this model, participation is really key to the planning process happening. Without the involvement of concerned interests, there is no planning.[80] Bent Flyvbjerg and Tim Richardson have developed a critique of the communicative approach and an alternative theory based on an understanding of ability and how it works in planning.[85] [86] Looking at each of these models information technology becomes clear that participation is non simply shaped past the public in a given surface area or past the attitude of the planning organization or planners that work for it. In fact, public participation is largely influenced by how planning is defined, how planning bug are divers, the kinds of cognition that planners cull to apply and how the planning context is set.[fourscore] Though some might contend that is too difficult to involve the public through transactive, advocacy, bargaining and communicative models considering transportation is some ways more technical than other fields, it is important to note that transportation is perhaps unique among planning fields in that its systems depend on the interaction of a number of individuals and organizations.[87]

Procedure [edit]

Blight may sometimes crusade communities to consider redeveloping and urban planning.

Changes to the planning process [edit]

Strategic Urban Planning over past decades have witnessed the metamorphosis of the role of the urban planner in the planning process. More citizens calling for democratic planning & development processes have played a huge role in allowing the public to make important decisions as part of the planning process. Community organizers and social workers are at present very involved in planning from the grassroots level.[88] The term advocacy planning was coined past Paul Davidoff in his influential 1965 newspaper, "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning" which acknowledged the political nature of planning and urged planners to admit that their actions are not value-neutral and encouraged minority and underrepresented voices to be function of planning decisions.[89] Benveniste argued that planners had a political role to play and had to bend some truth to power if their plans were to be implemented.[xc]

Developers have also played huge roles in development, particularly by planning projects. Many recent developments were results of large and pocket-sized-scale developers who purchased state, designed the district and synthetic the development from scratch. The Melbourne Docklands, for example, was largely an initiative pushed by private developers to redevelop the waterfront into a loftier-end residential and commercial district.

Recent theories of urban planning, espoused, for case past Salingaros see the city every bit an adaptive system that grows co-ordinate to process similar to those of plants. They say that urban planning should thus take its cues from such natural processes.[91] Such theories besides abet participation past inhabitants in the design of the urban environment, equally opposed to merely leaving all evolution to big-scale construction firms.[92]

In the process of creating an urban programme or urban design, carrier-infill is one mechanism of spatial arrangement in which the city's effigy and footing components are considered separately. The urban effigy, namely buildings, is represented as total possible building volumes, which are left to be designed by architects in the following stages. The urban ground, namely in-between spaces and open areas, are designed to a college level of detail. The carrier-infill approach is divers by an urban design performing as the carrying construction that creates the shape and scale of the spaces, including futurity building volumes that are so infilled by architects' designs. The contents of the carrier structure may include street design, landscape architecture, open space, waterways, and other infrastructure. The infill construction may contain zoning, building codes, quality guidelines, and Solar Access based upon a solar envelope.[93] [94] Carrier-Infill urban pattern is differentiated from complete urban design, such every bit in the monumental centrality of Brasília, in which the urban design and compages were created together.

In carrier-infill urban blueprint or urban planning, the negative space of the metropolis, including landscape, open space, and infrastructure is designed in particular. The positive infinite, typically building a site for future structure, is only represented in unresolved volumes. The volumes are representative of the total possible building envelope, which tin and then be infilled past private architects.

Come across besides [edit]

  • Index of urban planning articles
  • Index of urban studies manufactures
  • List of planned cities
  • List of planning journals
  • List of urban planners
  • Listing of urban theorists
  • MONU – magazine on urbanism
  • Planetizen
  • Transition Towns (network)
  • Transportation demand management
  • Urban acupuncture
  • Urban vitality

References [edit]

Notes

  1. ^ "How Planners Use Planning Theory". Retrieved 24 April 2015.
  2. ^ James, Paul; Holden, Meg; Lewin, Mary; Neilson, Lyndsay; Oakley, Christine; Truter, Art; Wilmoth, David (2013). "Managing Metropolises by Negotiating Mega-Urban Growth". In Mieg, Harald; Töpfer, Klaus (eds.). Institutional and Social Innovation for Sustainable Urban Development. Routledge.
  3. ^ Van Assche, Kristof; Beunen, Raoul; Duineveld, Martijn; de Jong, Harro (eighteen September 2012). "Co-evolutions of planning and blueprint: Risks and benefits of blueprint perspectives in planning systems". Planning Theory. 12 (2): 177–198. doi:10.1177/1473095212456771. S2CID 109970261.
  4. ^ a b Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 3. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  5. ^ Wheeler, Stephen (2004). "Planning Sustainable and Livable Cities", Routledge; 3rd edition.[ page needed ]
  6. ^ "Why Sustainable Architecture Is Becoming more Of import | CRL". c-r-fifty.com . Retrieved 19 May 2020.
  7. ^ a b Taylor, Nigel (11 June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 4. ISBN978-1-84920-677-8.
  8. ^ Taylor, Nigel (xi June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. pp. 4–5, 13. ISBN978-ane-84920-677-eight.
  9. ^ Taylor, Nigel (11 June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 15. ISBN978-one-84920-677-eight.
  10. ^ Hall, Peter (2008). The Cities of Tomorrow. Publishing: Blackwell. pp. 13–47, 87–141. ISBN978-0-631-23252-0.
  11. ^ Hall, Peter (2008). The Cities of Tomorrow. Publishing: Blackwell. pp. 48–86. ISBN978-0-631-23252-0.
  12. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Blueprint Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. ninety. ISBN978-ane-118-45651-4.
  13. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 91. ISBN978-one-118-45651-iv.
  14. ^ Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 92–96. ISBN978-i-118-45651-iv.
  15. ^ a b c Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 96. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  16. ^ a b Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 97. ISBN978-1-118-45651-iv.
  17. ^ Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 98. ISBN978-ane-118-45651-4.
  18. ^ Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Pattern Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 255. ISBN978-ane-118-45651-4.
  19. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 4 June 2014. Retrieved eleven August 2014. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy every bit title (link)
  20. ^ Caves, R. Westward. (2004). Encyclopedia of the Metropolis . Routledge. pp. 621. ISBN9780415252256.
  21. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 150. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  22. ^ Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 152. ISBN978-1-118-45651-iv.
  23. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 154. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  24. ^ Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 154–155. ISBN978-1-118-45651-four.
  25. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 155. ISBN978-one-118-45651-4.
  26. ^ a b Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 161. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  27. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 165. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  28. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 196. ISBN978-1-118-45651-iv.
  29. ^ a b Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 203. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  30. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 204. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  31. ^ Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 204. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  32. ^ a b Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Pattern Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 207. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  33. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Blueprint Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 210–211. ISBN978-one-118-45651-4.
  34. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Pattern Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 212. ISBN978-i-118-45651-4.
  35. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Pattern Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 218. ISBN978-i-118-45651-iv.
  36. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 223. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  37. ^ Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Pattern Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 229. ISBN978-1-118-45651-iv.
  38. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 238. ISBN978-i-118-45651-4.
  39. ^ a b c Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Pattern Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 241. ISBN978-1-118-45651-four.
  40. ^ a b Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 244. ISBN978-one-118-45651-4.
  41. ^ Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 245. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  42. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Blueprint Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 248–249. ISBN978-1-118-45651-iv.
  43. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Blueprint Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 251. ISBN978-1-118-45651-iv.
  44. ^ a b Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 340–341. ISBN978-1-118-45651-iv.
  45. ^ a b c Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Blueprint Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 342. ISBN978-i-118-45651-4.
  46. ^ a b c Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 344–345. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  47. ^ Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 346. ISBN978-1-118-45651-four.
  48. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Pattern Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 351. ISBN978-one-118-45651-4.
  49. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 353–354. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  50. ^ Allmendinger, Philip (2002). Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory . Routledge. pp. 20–25.
  51. ^ Black, William R. Transportation: A Geographical Assay. The Guilford1 Press. p. 29.
  52. ^ a b c Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 282. ISBN978-i-118-45651-4.
  53. ^ a b c Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 283. ISBN978-i-118-45651-four.
  54. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Blueprint Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 284. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  55. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Blueprint Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 312. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  56. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 315. ISBN978-1-118-45651-four.
  57. ^ a b Taylor, Nigel (11 June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 60. ISBN978-one-84920-677-8.
  58. ^ a b Taylor, Nigel (eleven June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 64. ISBN978-one-84920-677-eight.
  59. ^ Taylor, Nigel (11 June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 65. ISBN978-ane-84920-677-8.
  60. ^ a b Taylor, Nigel (11 June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 61. ISBN978-one-84920-677-viii.
  61. ^ a b c d Taylor, Nigel (eleven June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 62. ISBN978-i-84920-677-8.
  62. ^ a b c Taylor, Nigel (xi June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 63. ISBN978-1-84920-677-8.
  63. ^ a b c Taylor, Nigel (eleven June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 66. ISBN978-1-84920-677-viii.
  64. ^ a b c Taylor, Nigel (11 June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 67. ISBN978-1-84920-677-viii.
  65. ^ Taylor, Nigel (11 June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 69. ISBN978-1-84920-677-8.
  66. ^ Lindblom, Charles E. (undefined NaN). "The Science of 'Muddling Through'". Public Administration Review. xix (ii): 79–88. doi:10.2307/973677. JSTOR 973677.
  67. ^ Etzioni, A. (1968). The agile society: a theory of societal and political processes. New York: Costless Printing.
  68. ^ Taylor, Nigel (11 June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 77. ISBN978-1-84920-677-8.
  69. ^ Taylor, Nigel (11 June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. p. 83. ISBN978-1-84920-677-8.
  70. ^ Taylor, Nigel (xi June 1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. SAGE. pp. 83–84. ISBN978-one-84920-677-viii.
  71. ^ Lefevre, Pierre; Kolsteren, Patrick; De Wael, Marie-Paule; Byekwaso, Francis; Beghin, Ivan (December 2000). "Comprehensive Participatory Planning and Evaluation" (PDF). Antwerp, Belgium: IFAD. Retrieved 21 October 2008.
  72. ^ McTague, Colleen; Jakubowski, Susan (October 2013). "Marching to the trounce of a silent drum: Wasted consensus-building and failed neighborhood participatory planning". Applied Geography. 44: 182–191. doi:x.1016/j.apgeog.2013.07.019.
  73. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Pattern Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 299. ISBN978-1-118-45651-four.
  74. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 300. ISBN978-one-118-45651-four.
  75. ^ a b Hall, Peter (17 Apr 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 301. ISBN978-1-118-45651-iv.
  76. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Pattern Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 302. ISBN978-i-118-45651-4.
  77. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 304. ISBN978-ane-118-45651-4.
  78. ^ a b Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Blueprint Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 305–306. ISBN978-1-118-45651-4.
  79. ^ Hall, Peter (17 April 2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Blueprint Since 1880. John Wiley & Sons. p. 311. ISBN978-one-118-45651-iv.
  80. ^ a b c d e f g Lane, Marcus B. (November 2005). "Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual history". Australian Geographer. 36 (three): 283–299. doi:10.1080/00049180500325694. S2CID 18008094.
  81. ^ Friedman, J. (1973). Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
  82. ^ Davidoff, P. (1965). Advancement and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Found of Planners, 31 (four), 331–338.
  83. ^ Mazziotti, D. F. (1982). The underlying assumptions of advancement planning: pluralism and reform. In C. Paris (Ed.), Critical readings in planning theory (pp. 207–227) New York: Pergamon Printing.
  84. ^ McDonald, M. T. (1989). Rural Land Use Planning Decisions by Bargaining. Journal of Rural Studies, 5 (4), 325–335.
  85. ^ Flyvbjerg, Bent, 1996, "The Dark Side of Planning: Rationality and Realrationalität", in Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert Due west. Burchell, eds., Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research Press, pp. 383–394.
  86. ^ Flyvbjerg, Bent and Tim Richardson, 2002, "Planning and Foucault: In Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory." In Philip Allmendinger and Mark Tewdwr-Jones, eds., Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 44–62.
  87. ^ Wachs, Yard. (2004). Reflections on the planning process. In S. Hansen, & G. Guliano (Eds.), The Geography of Urban Transportation (3rd Edition ed., pp. 141–161). The Guilford Press.
  88. ^ Forester John. "Planning in the Confront of Disharmonize", 1987, ISBN 0-415-27173-8, Routledge, New York.
  89. ^ "Advocacy and Customs Planning: Past, Present, and Time to come". Planners Network. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  90. ^ Benveniste, Guy (1994). Mastering the Politics of Planning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  91. ^ ""Life and the geometry of the environs", Nikos Salingaros, November 2010" (PDF) . Retrieved 11 Baronial 2014.
  92. ^ ""P2P Urbanism", drove of manufactures by Nikos Salingaros and others" (PDF).
  93. ^ Capeluto, I.G.; Shaviv, E. (2001). "On the use of 'solar volume' for determining the urban cloth". Solar Energy. seventy (three): 275–280. Bibcode:2001SoEn...70..275C. doi:ten.1016/S0038-092X(00)00088-8.
  94. ^ Nelson, Nels O. Planning the Productive City, 2009, accessed 30 December 2010.

[1] Bibliography

  • Allmendinger, Phil; Gunder, Michael (11 Baronial 2016). "Applying Lacanian Insight and a Dash of Derridean Deconstruction to Planning's 'Dark Side'". Planning Theory. iv (1): 87–112. doi:10.1177/1473095205051444. S2CID 145100234.
  • Bogo, H.; Gómez, D.R.; Reich, South.L.; Negri, R.M.; San Román, Eastward. (April 2001). "Traffic pollution in a downtown site of Buenos Aires City". Atmospheric Surroundings. 35 (10): 1717–1727. Bibcode:2001AtmEn..35.1717B. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00555-0.
  • Garvin, Alexander (2002). The American Metropolis: What Works and What Doesn't. New York: McGraw Hill. ISBN978-0-07-137367-8. (A standard text for many college and graduate courses in city planning in America)
  • Dalley, Stephanie, 1989, Myths from Mesopotamia: Cosmos, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Oxford Earth's Classics, London, pp. 39–136
  • Gunder, Michael (October 2003). "Passionate planning for the others' want: an agonistic response to the dark side of planning". Progress in Planning. 60 (three): 235–319. doi:10.1016/S0305-9006(02)00115-0.
  • Hoch, Charles, Linda C. Dalton and Frank South. So, editors (2000). The Practice of Local Government Planning, Intl City Canton Management Assn; 3rd edition. ISBN 0-87326-171-2 (The "Dark-green Book")
  • James, Paul; Holden, Meg; Lewin, Mary; Neilson, Lyndsay; Oakley, Christine; Truter, Art; Wilmoth, David (2013). "Managing Metropolises past Negotiating Mega-Urban Growth". In Harald Mieg and Klaus Töpfer (ed.). Institutional and Social Innovation for Sustainable Urban Development. Routledge.
  • Kemp, Roger L. and Carl J. Stephani (2011). "Cities Going Green: A Handbook of Best Practices." McFarland and Co., Inc., Jefferson, NC, The states, and London, England, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. ISBN 978-0-7864-5968-1.
  • Oke, T. R. (Jan 1982). "The energetic basis of the urban heat island". Quarterly Periodical of the Purple Meteorological Society. 108 (455): 1–24. Bibcode:1982QJRMS.108....1O. doi:x.1002/qj.49710845502.
  • Pløger, John (30 November 2016). "Public Participation and the Art of Governance". Environs and Planning B: Planning and Design. 28 (ii): 219–241. doi:10.1068/b2669. S2CID 143996926.
  • Roy, Ananya (March 2008). "Postal service-Liberalism: On the Ethico-Politics of Planning". Planning Theory. 7 (1): 92–102. doi:10.1177/1473095207087526. S2CID 143458706.
  • Santamouris, Matheos (2006). Ecology Blueprint of Urban Buildings: An Integrated Approach.
  • Shrady, Nicholas, The Last Twenty-four hours: Wrath, Ruin & Reason in The Great Lisbon Earthquake of 1755, Penguin, 2008, ISBN 978-0-14-311460-4
  • Tang, Wing-Shing (17 August 2016). "Chinese Urban Planning at Fifty: An Assessment of the Planning Theory Literature". Periodical of Planning Literature. xiv (iii): 347–366. doi:10.1177/08854120022092700. S2CID 154281106.
  • Tunnard, Christopher and Boris Pushkarev (1963). Man-Made America: Anarchy or Command?: An Inquiry into Selected Problems of Pattern in the Urbanized Landscape, New Oasis: Yale Academy Press. (This book won the National Book Accolade, strictly America; a time capsule of photography and pattern approach.)
  • Wheeler, Stephen (2004). "Planning Sustainable and Livable Cities", Routledge; 3rd edition.
  • Yiftachel, Oren, 1995, "The Dark Side of Modernism: Planning as Control of an Ethnic Minority," in Sophie Watson and Katherine Gibson, eds., Postmodern Cities and Spaces (Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell), pp. 216–240.
  • Yiftachel, Oren (half-dozen November 2016). "Planning and Social Control: Exploring the Dark Side". Periodical of Planning Literature. 12 (4): 395–406. doi:x.1177/088541229801200401. S2CID 14859857.
  • Yiftachel, Oren (xi Baronial 2016). "Essay: Re-engaging Planning Theory? Towards 'South-Eastern' Perspectives". Planning Theory. 5 (3): 211–22. doi:10.1177/1473095206068627. S2CID 145359885.
  • A Short Introduction to Radical Planning Theory and Practise, Doug Aberley Ph.D. MCIP, Winnipeg Inner Metropolis Research Alliance Summer Institute, June 2003
  • McConnell, Shean. Theories for Planning, 1981, David & Charles, London.

Further reading [edit]

  • Urban Planning, 1794–1918: An International Anthology of Articles, Briefing Papers, and Reports, Selected, Edited, and Provided with Headnotes past John W. Reps, Professor Emeritus, Cornell University.
  • Metropolis Planning According to Artistic Principles, Camillo Sitte, 1889
  • Missing Middle Housing: Responding to the Demand for Walkable Urban Living past Daniel Parolek of Opticos Design, Inc., 2012
  • Kemp, Roger Fifty. and Carl J. Stephani (2011). "Cities Going Green: A Handbook of All-time Practices." McFarland and Co., Inc., Jefferson, NC, U.s., and London, England, Britain. (ISBN 978-0-7864-5968-ane).
  • Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, Ebenezer Howard, 1898
  • The Improvement of Towns and Cities, Charles Mulford Robinson, 1901
  • Boondocks Planning in exercise, Raymond Unwin, 1909
  • The Principles of Scientific Management, Frederick Winslow Taylor, 1911
  • Cities in Evolution, Patrick Geddes, 1915
  • The Image of the Metropolis, Kevin Lynch, 1960
  • The Concise Townscape, Gordon Cullen, 1961
  • The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs, 1961
  • The City in History, Lewis Mumford, 1961
  • The City is the Frontier, Charles Abrams, Harper & Row Publishing, New York, 1965.
  • A Pattern Language, Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa and Murray Silverstein, 1977
  • What Practise Planners Do?: Power, Politics, and Persuasion, Charles Hoch, American Planning Clan, 1994. ISBN 978-0-918286-91-8
  • Planning the Twentieth-Century American City, Christopher Silver and Mary Corbin Sies (Eds.), Johns Hopkins University Printing, 1996
  • "The Urban center Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings Through History", Spiro Kostof, 2nd Edition, Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1999 ISBN 978-0-500-28099-seven
  • The American City: A Social and Cultural History, Daniel J. Monti, Jr., Oxford, England and Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. 391 pp. ISBN 978-one-55786-918-0.
  • Urban Development: The Logic Of Making Plans, Lewis D. Hopkins, Island Printing, 2001. ISBN 1-55963-853-2
  • 'Readings in Planning Theory, fourth edition, Susan Fainstein and James DeFilippis, Oxford, England and Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 2016.
  • Taylor, Nigel, (2007), Urban Planning Theory since 1945, London, Sage.
  • Planning for the Unplanned: Recovering from Crises in Megacities, past Aseem Inam (published past Routledge USA, 2005).

External links [edit]

  • Urban and Regional Planning at Curlie
  1. ^ Buchan, Robert (14 Nov 2019). "Transformative Incrementalism: Planning for transformative modify in local food systems". Progress in Planning. 134: 100424. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2018.07.002.

martinezprefte.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_urban_planning

0 Response to "Negotiation and Settlement Advocacy: a Book of Readings, 2nd Ed."

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel