The paper is focused on factors that drive the evolution of models, assumptions, methods, processes, and proposals as expressed in planning documents. It is concentrated on societal factors such as political and economic trends, as well as on local considerations such as the evolution of the urban structure and local political and economic circumstances. Consideration is also given to paradigm shifts occurring within the planning profession and to their influence on local-level planning. The author examines planners' professional interest in developing and adopting new paradigms. He argues that the adjustment of planning to societal trends is mediated by planners' creativity, knowledge, initiative, and self-interest. The empirical substance is drawn from a case study of downtown revitalization planning over a thirty-year period in the city of Kitchener, Ontario. The author identifies a shift from expert-based to participatory planning and speculates on the likely forms local planning will take in the future.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderE R, 1984, “After rationality, what? A review of responses to paradigm breakdown”Journal of the American Planning Association5062–69
2.
AlexanderE R, 1986Approaches to Planning (Gordon and Breach, New York)
3.
BellushJHausknechtM (Eds), 1967Urban Renewal: People, Politics and Planning (Doubleday, NY)
4.
BlockF, 1987Revising State Theory: Essays in Politics and Postindustrialism (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA)
5.
BoyerM C, 1983Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American Planning (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
6.
BrudneyJEnglandR, 1983, “Toward a definition of the coproduction concept”Public Administration Review4059–65
7.
BurnsT, 1961, “Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change”Administrative Science Quarterly6257–281
8.
ChadwickG F, 1971A Systems View of Planning: Towards a Theory of the Urban and Regional Planning Process (Pergamon Press, Oxford)
9.
City of Kitchener, 1987Downtown Redevelopment Plan: Volume 1, PRIDE Application City of Kitchener, City Hall, Box 1118, Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7
10.
City of Kitchener, 1988Kitchener Downtown Community Improvement Plan (Schedule A)City of Kitchener, Kitchener
11.
ColburnD RPazzettaG E (Eds), 1983Reform and Reformers in the Progressive Era (Greenwood Press, Westport, CO)
12.
DBS, 19631961 Census of Canada: Population, Historical, 1901–1961 Catalogue 92–539, Dominion Bureau of Statistics (Queen's Printer, Ottawa)
13.
FTF, 1969Report Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development (Queen's Printer, Ottawa)
14.
FilionP, 1987, “Core redevelopment and municipal government motivation: Twenty years of urban renewal in Quebec City”Canadian Journal of Political Science20131–147
15.
FilionP, 1988, “The Neighbourhood Improvement Plan: Montreal and Toronto—Contrasts between a participatory and a centralized approach to urban policy making”Urban History Review17(1) 16–28
16.
FraserG, 1972Fighting Back: Urban Renewal in Trefann Court (Hakkert, Toronto)
17.
ForesterJ, 1987Planning in the Face of Power (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
18.
FriedenB JSagalynL B, 1989Downtown Inc.: How America Rebuilds Cities (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
19.
Government of Ontario, 1973, “Ontario Planning and Development Act”, in Revised Statutes of Ontario 1980Volume 5, Chapter 354 (Queen's Printer, Toronto)
20.
HagueC, 1984The Development of Planning Thought: A Critical Perspective (Hutchinson, London)
21.
HallP, 1989, “The turbulent eight decade: Challenges to American city planning”Journal of the American Planning Association55275–282
22.
HochC, 1984, “Doing good and being right: The pragmatic connection in planning theory”Journal of the American Planning Association50335–345
23.
JWA, 1991Addendum to August 1991 Report, Market and Impact Issues in the City of WaterlooJohn Winter and Associates Ltd, 2 Wheeler, Toronto, Ontario M4L 3V2
24.
KiernanM J, 1983, “Ideology, politics and planning: Reflections on the theory and practice of urban planning”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design1071–87
Kitchener-Waterloo Record1986, “Not near us: Victoria Park residents tell Kitchener officials to put low-rent housing project somewhere else”, 18 December, pages B1–B2.
28.
KPD, 1964aReport on Kitchener Civic Centre SiteKitchener Planning Department, City Hall, Box 1118, Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7
OffeC, 1975, “The theory of capitalist state and the problems of policy formation”, in Stress and Contradiction in Modern Capitalism Ed. LindbergL N (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA) pp 125–144
PettigrewA M, 1973The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making (Tavistock, London)
46.
PoggiG, 1978The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
47.
ReifB, 1973Models in Urban and Regional Planning (Leonard Hill, Aylesbury)
48.
RC, 1992RegenerationRoyal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa; available from 171 Slater St., 11th floor, Station “B”, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6P5
49.
SchönD A, 1982, “Some of what a planner knows”Journal of the American Planning Association48351–364
50.
SewellJ, 1972Up Against City Hall (James Levine and Samuel, Toronto)
51.
ShalinskiW, 1979, “The Kitchener market fight, 1971: A study in citizen protest”Plan Canada19(1) 23–29
52.
Statistics Canada, 1992Urban Areas: Population and Dwelling Counts Catalogue 93–305, Minister of Industry Science and Technology, Ottawa, Ontario K1A0T6
53.
TettAWolfeJ M, 1991, “Disourse analysis and city plans”Journal of Planning Education and Research10(3) 195–200
54.
WebberM W, 1978, “A difference paradigm for planning”, in Planning Theory in the 1980s: A Search for Future Directions Eds BurchellR WSternliebG; The Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, pages 151–162
55.
Woods Gordon, Barton Myers Associates, McCormick Rankin, 1981Kitchener Downtown StudyWoods Gordon, PO 251, Ernst and Young Tower, Toronto, Ontario M5K 1J7
