As a source of collective identity, planning history is valuable for purposes of professional socialization. But it can also provide insights into current dilemmas of planning practice as it explains the origins of institutions and techniques and documents the concerns of planners in earlier generations. This paper highlights the relevance of historical writings, by planning pioneers and by historians, to contemporary planning theory by analyzing how planning pioneers framed public problems and professional discretion in early development regulation. A case-study on the adoption of housing laws in late 19th-century New York City illustrates the benefits that planning theorists, including those working in a communicative perspective, can derive from historical research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott, Carl, anid Sy Adler. 1989. Historical anialysis as a planninig tool. Journal oj the Aoierican Planning Association55(4): 467-473.
2.
Altschuler, Alan A.1965. The City Planniog Process: A PoliticalAnalysis. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
3.
Aronovici, Carol. 1914. Housing and the housing problem. In Housing and Town Planning, eds. Carol Aronovici, 1-7. Philadelphia, Pa.: American Academy of Political and Social Science.
4.
Association of Collegiate Schools of Planninig (ACSP), Strategic Marketing Committee. 1997. Anchor points for planning's identification. Journal of Planning Education and Research16(3): 223-225.
5.
Baer, William C.1987. Expertise and professional standards. Work and Occupations13(4): 532-552.
6.
Bassett, Edward M.1940. Zoning: The Laws, Administration, and Court Decisions During the First Twenty Years. New York: Russell Sage Founldation.
7.
Beauregard, Robert A.1990. Bringing the city back in. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation56(2): 210-215.
8.
Beauregard, Robert A. 1999. A critique of institutional planning theory. Presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning 41st Annual Conference, Chicago, Ill., October 21.
9.
Booth, Philip. 1996. Controlling Development: Certainty and Discretion in Furope, the USA and Hong Kong. London: UCL Press.
10.
Boyer, M. Christine. 1983. Dreaming the Rational City. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
11.
Boyer, Paul. 1978. Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820-1920. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
12.
Brooks, Michael P.1996. Planning and political power: Toward a strategy for coping. In Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell, 116-133. New Bru-nswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
13.
Burchell, Robert W., ed. 1973. Frontiers ofPlanned Unit Development: A Synthesis of Expert Opinion. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
14.
Cottereau, Alain. 1978. La tuberculose: maladie urbaine ou maladie de l'usure au travail? Critique d'une epidemiologie officielle: le cas de Paris. Sociologie du travail 20(2): 192-224.
15.
Crow, Stephen. 1996. Development control: fhe child that grew up in the cold. Planninig Perspectives11 (4): 399-411.
16.
Cullingworth, J. Barry. 1993. The Political Culture ofPlanning: American Land Use Planning in Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge.
17.
Dalton, Linda. 1989. The limits of regulation: Evidence from local plan implementation in California. Journal ofthe American Planning Association55(2): 151-168.
18.
DeForest, Robert W., and Lawrence Veiller, eds. 1903. The Tenement House Problemn. New York: The Macmillan Company.
19.
Dunni, William N.1981. PuIblic Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs. N..: PrenticeIHall.
20.
Fainstein, Susan. 1991. Promoting economic development in the United States and Great Britain. Journal of theAmlerican PlanningAssociation57(1): 22-33.
21.
Fischler, Raphael. 1993. Standards of development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
22.
Fischler, Raphael. 1998. The metropolitan dimension of early zoniing: Revisiting the 1916 New York City Ordinance. Journal ofthe American PlanningAssociation64(2): 170-188.
23.
Fogleson, Robert E.1986. Planning the Capitalist City: The Colonial Era to the 1920s. Princetoti, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
24.
Forester, John. 1989. Panninig in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
25.
Forester, John. 1993. Learning from practice stories: The priority of practical judgment. The Argutmentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, eds. Frank Fischeranid John Forester, 186-209. Durham, N.C.: tDuke University Press.
26.
Forester, John. 1996. T he rationality of listening, emotional sensitivity, and moral vision. In E,xplorations in planning Theory, eds. Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell, 204-224. Ness Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
27.
Friedmanni, John. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
28.
Hall, Peter. 1988. Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Tiwentieth Centuey. London: Basil Blackwell.
29.
Harsey, David. 1985. On planning the ideology of planning. In The (JFhasiazrsltion Capital: Studies sin the Histors, and Theory of Capitalist [t/habsaczatisosi, 165-184. Baltimorc, Md.: The Johns Hopkinis UnivcrsitN Press.
30.
Harvey, David. 1989. The Urban Evpesieice. Baltimiore, Md.: the Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hoch, Charles1984a. Doing good and being right: The pragmatic conneccioi 1in planniinlg [heoiy. journal of the Ameericuai PlannsissgAssociausios50(3): 335-345.
33.
Hoch, Charles. 1984b. Pragmatism, planning and power. Jofirnsal of Planislisig Educatiosi and Research4(2): 86-95.
34.
Huxley, Margo, and Oren Yiftachel. 2000. New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the “communicative turn” in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 19(4).
35.
Innies, Judith. 1995. Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Joturnal of Planning Education and Research14(3): 183-189.
36.
Innes, Judith. 1996. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association62(4): 460-472.
37.
Innes, Judith. 1997. The planners' century. Journal of Planning Education and Research16(3): 227-228.
38.
Jacobs, Alan. 1980. Making City Planning Work. Chicago, Ill.: APA Planners Press.
39.
Johnson, David A., and Daniel Schaffer. 1985. Learning from the pastThe history of planning. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation51(2): 131-133.
40.
Kenidig, Lane. 1981. Performance Zoning. Chicago, Ill.: APA Planners Press.
41.
Krumholz, Norman, and John Forester. 1990. Making Equity Planning Work: Leadership in the Public Sector. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press.
42.
Krumholz, Norman, and Pierre Clavel. 1994. Reinventing Cities: Equity Planners Tell Their Stories. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press.
43.
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas ofthe Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
44.
Lubove, Roy. 1974. [1962]The Progressives and the Slums: Tenement House Reform in New York, 1890-1917. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
45.
Makielski, S.J., Jr.1966. The Politics ofZoning: The New York Experience. New York: Columbia University Press.
46.
Mandelbaum, Seymour J.1985. Historians and planners: The cort&ruaction of past and futures. /ournal ofthe American PlanningAssociation51(2):185-188.
47.
Manidelbaum, Seymour, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell, eds. 1996. Fxplorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
48.
Manniinig, Nick. 1985. Reconistructinig social problems: Policy failure, ideology and social knowledge. In Social Problems and Welfare Ideology. ed. Nick Manning, 160-200. London: Gower.
49.
Malrcuise, Peter. 1980. Housing policy and city planniing: The puzzling split in the United States, 1893-1931. In Shaping an Urban World, ed. Gordon E. Cherry, 23-58. New York: St. Martin's Press.
50.
Merton, Robert K.1971. Social problem-ls and sociological thet)ry. In Contesmporcry Soclill Problenis. 3rd cdition, eds. Robert K. Merton anld Robcit Nisbet, 793-845. New York: HarcouLrt Brace Jovaniovich.
51.
Meverson, Martin, and Edward C. Banfield. 1955. Politics, Planning and the Public Interest: The Case ofPublic Housing in Chicago. New York: Free Press.
52.
Moore, Mark H.1976. Anatomy of the heroin problem: An exercise in problem definition. Policy Analysis2(4): 639-660.
53.
Nisbet, Robert. 1971. The study of social problems. In Contemporary Social Problems, 3rd edition, eds. Robert K. Merton and Robert Nisbet, 1-25. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
54.
Rein, Martin. 1971. Social policy analysis as the interpretation of beliefs. Journal of the American Institute of Planners37(5): 297-310.
55.
Rein, Martin, and Lisa Peattie. 1980. Problem frames in poverty research. In Poverty and Public Polic-y: An Evaluation of Social Science Research, ed. Vincent T. Covello, 234-256. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Co.
56.
Schosn, Donald A.1979. Generative metaphor: A perspective on problemsetting in social policy. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortony, 254-283. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Schón, Donald A.1983. The Reflecrtivue Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
58.
Scott, Allen J., and Edward W. Soja, eds. 1996. The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century. Berkeley: University of Californiia Press.
59.
Sies, Mary C., and Christopher Silver. 1996a. The history of planning history. In Planning the Twentieth-Century American City, eds. Mary C. Sies and Christopher Silver, 1-34. Baltimore, Md.: The Johnis Hopkins University Press.
60.
Sies, Mary C., and Christopher Silver, eds. 1996b. Planning the TwentiethCentury American City. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
61.
Silver, Christopher. 1985. Neighborhood planning in historical perspective. Journal of the American Planning Association51(2): 161-174.
62.
Stone, Deborah A. 1986. The strategic uses of causation in problem definition. Mimeograph. Paper presented at the Conference on Problem Definition in Public Policy, Brown University, Providence, R.I.
63.
Susskind, Lawrence E.1991. Preparing the next generation of planners. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation57(1): 20-21.
64.
Toll, Seymour I.1969. ZonedAmerican. New York: Grossman Publishers.
65.
Veiller, Lawrence. 1903. Tenement house reform in New York City, 1834-1900. In The Tenement House Problem, eds. Robert W. DeForest and Lawrence Veiller, 69-118. New York: The Macmillan Company.
66.
Veiller, Lawrence. 1909. Essential principles of a building code. In Proceedings of the Cincinnati Conferencefor Good City Government and the Fifteenth Annual Meeting ofthe National Municipal League (Nov. 15-18, 1909), ed. Clinton R. Woodruff, Jr., 196-204. New York: National Municipal League.
67.
Veiller, Lawrence. 1910a. Housing Reform: A Hand-Bookfor Practical Use in American Cities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
68.
Veiller, Lawrence. 1910b. A Model Tenement House Law. New York: Charities Publications Committee (for the Russell Sage Foundation).
69.
Veiller, Lawrence. 1914. Housing reform through legislation. In Housing and Town Planning, ed. Carol Aronovici, 68-81. Philadelphia, Pa.: American Academy of Political and Social Science.
70.
Veiller, Lawrence. 1920. A Model Housing Law. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
71.
Weiss, Marc A.1992. Skyscraper zoning: New York's pioneering role. Journal ofthe American PlanningAssociation58(2): 201-212.
72.
Whyte, William H.1988. City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Doubleday.
73.
Wilson, Woodrow. 1978 [1887]. The study of administration. In Classics of Public Administration, eds. Jay M. Shafritz anid Albert C. Hyde, 3-17. Oak Paik, Ill.: Moore Publishing Co.
74.
Wolch, Jennifer R.1998. America's new urbani policy: Welfare reformi anid the fate of american cities. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation64(1): 8-11.
75.
Wood, Edith E.1918. Constructive housing legislation and its lesson for the United States. In The Housing Problem in War and in Peace, eds. Charles H. Whitacker, Frederick L. Ackerman, Richard S. Childs, and Edith Elmer Wood, 69-100. Washington, D.C.: The Journal of the Anierican Institute of Architects.
