VIEWPOINT: Challenge and creativity in postmodern planning

Abstract

Planners in the United States (US) have never had it easy. Planning is barely accepted in some areas, and in dozens of states, cities and towns are under no obligation to have a plan nor to hire a person with planning education or experience. Planners work amid a confusing array of federal, state and local public agencies with different missions, regulatory authority or funding responsibility which all affect what the planner must or can do. In only a handful of places does any regional authority help organise this maze of mandates and agencies. Regional environmental issues such as air quality, management of limited water resources, and diminishing habitat for endangered species intersect with urban development, especially in growing states such as California. Planners have to know a great deal and be prepared to talk with many kinds of experts. They have to be on the front lines with the public, developers, and elected officials in hearings, workshops and one on one. They have to live with a disjunction between what is expected and what can actually be accomplished (Innes, 1994). They are partly bureaucrats, partly political players and partly professionals with responsibility for independent judgement. Inevitably, because of this ambiguity, a planner has discretion and yet has no clear guidelines for action, facing difficult questions about what is ethical and to whom he/she answers the public, boss, or elected officials (Howe, 1994). The challenge for planners has grown in recent years as more and more organised interests have become active players in planning decisions and as public trust in government has declined. This very challenge, however, has produced planners who are creating innovative ways of 'doing' planning, taking on new roles and designing new processes and institutions. They are doing things for which, for the most part,

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.