Guillermo Umaña

Macquarie University
Guillermo.umana@students.mq.edu.au

Planning Philosophies in 20th Century Australia

Since the first human settlements, social and power structures had shaped the different
theories that influence planners in different eras (MacLaran & McGuirk, 2003). As
boundaries of planning are hard to define and planning is influenced by a variety of
disciplines (Campbell & Fainstein, 2003), it did not appear as a distinct science until the
beginning of the 20th century. During this century, planning evolved from models and
blueprints to science and processes; from technocratic and rational to flexible and
communicative.

In the first two decades of the 20 th century, planning appeared as a practical science that
intended to fix all the urban problems that arose with the industrial revolution. Massive
immigration and large-scale manufacturing brought a desire for reform to reduce health
and poverty issues associated with urban growth (Beauregard, 2003). Movements that
aimed to improve efficiency and health appeared. The Garden City movement, promoting
balanced zones for residence, industry and commerce and the City Beautiful movement
that saw the city as “grand civic art” appeared during this period (Thompson ed., 2007).
Planning started looking for guidelines to the creation of functional and attractive cities
(Hamnett & Freestone, 2000) and modernism merged.

Modernism arose with positivism as a pact between capitalism and the state. It was a
holistic movement, where planners were seen as the integrators of different fragments.
Modernism promoted the role of the state into eliminating social problems and acting for
the public interest and looked forward utopic futures based on rational and quantitative
methods. John Sulman´s and Norman Selfe´s ostentatious designs for Sydney in 1909 are
good examples of modernism at the beginning of the century in Australia. There were many
theorists of the Garden City and Beautiful City movements; Sulman´s book An Introduction
To Australian City Planning is an example of it. The Melbourne Congress in 1901 and the
Federal Capital design (1911-12) confirmed the formation of modernist planning in Australia
(Hamnett & Freestone, 2000). The end of the Second World War led the fist modernist
movements to decline and would add new concepts and objections to the modernist idea of
planning.

Social Democratic Managerialism appeared with the postwar master plans of

reconstruction. It led to the professionalization and specialization of planning and
innovations in land use zoning, transport strategies and suburban development (Hamnett &
Freestone, 2000). Planning started to be seen as a state-directed, technocratic and
bureaucratic labor. In Australia satellite towns and corridor cities became popular, as well as
the construction of more freeways and high city centers influenced by American planning
(Thompson ed., 2007). During this time, Planning was thought to be detached from
politics and purely based on rationality and expertise. In the decade of 1960, many
theories against this idea arose and critics brought Marxism as a solution to the social
problems that could not be solved by modernism (Gleeson & Low, 2000).

Although Marxism was never put into practice in Australia because of lack of political
support, it led to the formation of new critics to the modernist ideal and finally to the
construction of postmodernism. In the 1970´s, the Builder´s Laborers Federation in New
South Wales, created the Green Bans, which campaigned against what they called
irresponsible development (Gleeson & Low, 2000). During this period, new feminist and
environmentalist movements questioned the role of the state in urban planning. Leonie
Sandercock, one of the most influential writers of the second half of the century in Australia
wrote “there has been a tendency to privilege the physical and technical and marginalize
the social and community” (Sandercock, 1998). Modernism came apart because of its
totalizing vision and the lack of adaptation to new political and economic circumstances.
Economic growth became the main objective (Beauregard, 2003).

In the 1980´s neo-liberalism appeared with the boost of deregulations and free market. In
Australia this triggered privatization of airports and the creation of NSW Environmental
Planning Assessment act (Thompson ed., 2007). Theories as the Communicative Planning,
based on Jurgen Habermas ideas, came up with the view of planning as a collaborative
practice with desired public participation (Kitchen, 2006). The private sector gained
importance in the Entrepreneurial City. In the 1990´s the Neoliberal City appeared with
individualism, competitiveness and a more powerful relationship between business and
state. Finally it led to the hybrid and cultural city we see today (Freestone, 2000).

Postmodernism was built upon the principles of diversity and global hybridism. It rejects the
modernist thought of single truth. The city compromises different ideologies, genders,
nationalities and must respond to social justice, cultural identity and economic
efficiency(Freestone, 2000). Edward Soja is one of the main postmodern theorists with
publications such as The City and Spatial Justice. His ideas, like many other postmodern
theorists are formed in a context of hyper-mobile capital, poverty and wealth in the same
space, individualism and consumption. In Sydney, the Mardi Gras celebration and the re-
development of Redfern are examples of postmodernism. Planners are now seen as a
medium for critical thinking, communication and values to make integrated decisions
between different fractions.

References
 Freestone, R. (2000) Urban planning in a changing world: the twentieth century
experience. London: E&F Spon.
 Gleeson B., Low, N. (2000) Australian Urban Planning: new challenges, new
agendas. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
 Hamnett S., Freestone, R. (eds) (2000) The Australian Metropolis: A Planning History,
Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
 Thompson, S. ed. (2007) Planning Australia: An Overview of Urban and Regional
Planning. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Additional References

 Beauregard, R. (2003) ‘Between Modernity and Postmodernity: the ambiguous

position of US planning’ in Campbell and Fainstein, eds. Readings in Planning Theory (2nd
edition), Oxford: Blackwell.
 Campbell, S., Fainstein, S. (2003) ‘Introduction: the structure and debates of
planning theory’ in Campbell, S., and Fainstein, S., (eds). Readings in Planning Theory:
Second edition. Blackwell Publishers
 MacLaran, A., McGuirk, P. (2003) ‘Planning the City’ in MacLaran, A., P.McGuirk.
Making Space: Property Development and Urban Planning, New York: Oxford, pp.63-94.
 Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning For Multicultural Cities.
Chichester: John Wiley.
 Kitchen, T. (2006) Skills for Planning Practice. Palgrave Macmillan, New York; chapter
9.