Postmodern Planning Theory

and the Current Planning

Agenda

200 555 706

 Postmodern Planning Theory
and the Current Planning
Agenda
University of Liverpool
School of Environmental Sciences
The Dept. of Civic Design
The Gordon Stephenson Building
74 Bedford Street South
Liverpool
Merseyside
L2 2DH

April 2010

200 555 706 2  

 
Preface

…the scope, content and direction of planning are shaped by political struggles,
at various spatial scales, in which the protagonists (and lines of cleavage) arise
from the conflicts of interest in capitalist society…(Thomas 1999)

This paper aims to engage in the developing form of the modern day planning
system and how this relates to the concept of postmodernism. The difficulty of
providing postmodernism with a finite description is explored, while the primary
components of the postmodern debate are discussed and related to
contemporary society.

The following report firstly provides a contextual backing to postmodernist theory,

this foundation is then developed with a discussion on how the current planning
system and its component parts goes toward meeting the demands of
postmodern theory. The element of community and urban design supplements
the postmodern planning debate, where architectural preference is referred to as
an indicator of changing styles of governance. The paper then concludes with a
view on the current state of the planning system and how this view has been
informed by postmodern values.

200 555 706 3  

 
Postmodernism in context

Planning as a profession endures much critisism for the role it plays in shaping
prevalent urban issues. However, Planning as a tool has never was never
intended solve issues of urban blight (Allmendinger 2003). The ideologists of the
planning and design profession believed a multitude of concepts were the answer
to ongoing urban ills. However, the mechanistic nature of planning was and is
solely intended to support the governing capitalist superstructure and
accompanying political framework.

The image of Planning as a profession as founded in elitist circles by individuals

with a knowledge above and beyond the common city dweller still prevails. The
idea that these appointed individuals create responses to arising urban issues
creates friction in that it is highly contested as to how a single man or woman is
able to deem what is right and proper for an increasingly fractured, disjointed
population (Allmendinger 2003).

The postmodern view represents an understanding of modernity, and the

changing political nature of the planning system since its inception.
Postmodernism with specific emphasis on the post war period of the 1950ʼs
began to realise a post industrial era, one of increasing globalisation, and a
compression of the time-space analogy at the hand of developing technologies.
The changing face of the planning system through the post war era increasingly
centred around principles of rationality and empiricism, Thatcherism and the ever
growing presence of globalisation has culminated in an incremental course of
development which fails to meet the quickening pace of contemporary living. The
postmodern view acknowledges the organic, piecemeal nature of the current
planning system and aims to make a resurgence back to the pre-global concept
of urban living appreciating local prosperity and spontaneous human interaction
in the creating of well functioning, cohesive communities.

200 555 706 4  

 
Postmodernism and the current Planning model

Post Modern planning theory provides a new theoretical perspective on previous

planning thought; it represents a paradigm shift inspired by revolutionary change.
The post modern planning and design movement has created an alteration of the
fundamental way in which we view the functioning of society, with this the
planning system acknowledges components of moral judgement, political
influence and aesthetic value as playing a crucial role (Taylor 2006).

The shift from modernism to postmodernism from the 1960ʼs to the 1980ʼs
engaged with the ubiquitous presence of cultural values that seemed to alter,
along with the more technocratic governed arm of the planning system. The 60ʼs
saw a transition from more traditional urban design planning principles toward
rational planning thought from thereon the role of the planner began to change
(Taylor 2006). The idea of planning as a practical art became superseded by the
systems approach and a more sterile look at the delivery of spaces and the
process of the delivery. A more distinct concentration was placed on the
functional requirements of space as opposed to the ephemeral uses of parties
which a single space or collection of spaces entertain.

The shift away from viewing towns and cities on an aesthetic, geographic,
morphological level to one of potential socio-economic activity and development,
suggested the requirement for the intervention of scientific analysis grounding
any emergent governing processes in empiricism. The introduction of a broader,
strategic level of planning supported by the rational decision making process
required a range of skills additional to that of the traditional planner, designer.

In todayʼs planning system the planner plays the role of facilitator or mediator
(Taylor 2006) where the technical expertise of the planner are supplemented by a
host of external parties involved in the planning process, now championed
through the partnership approach.

200 555 706 5  

 
A fragmented understanding of contemporary problems only generates
fragmented solutions (Ellin 2006); in response to this quote it is seen that the
failure to address perpetuating levels of social and economic deprivation in a
holistic fashion has led to a pattern of fragmented management which the current
multifaceted nature of the modern planning system aims to rectify.

This multifaceted approach is supported by the emergence of what Ellin

Describes as administrative hybrids reflected in the growing resonance of the
partnership approach throughout the modern planning system. Current
partnership schemes between government, public and private organisations
manage a great deal of transit and housing and cultural development
opportunities. This newly founded system of interdisciplinary practice is afforded
by the incremental approach toward building city regions. The LDF portfolio with
the core strategy at its heart is supplemented by the potential addition of
development plan and supplementary planning documents. Such components
enable a tailored approach to urban planning and facilitate a celebration of
individuality as advocated for by both social activist Jacobs (1961) and Ellin.

The term postmodern when associated with planning practice and the evolution
of the planning system proves somewhat of an oxymoron. The concept of
postmodernism in itsʼ purest sense is that there is no single legitimising definition
that gives the movement credence. Postmodernism as a cultural shift that
influences the way we govern our cities is intended to be at best defined as the
multiplicity of interrelations involved in urban living (Oranje, 2002), a concept
exempt of categorical exactness.

Due to the free reign of the postmodern era and transitional population governed
by increasingly flexible political regimes, the planning system as a guiding
mechanism is too adjusting to the ephemeral state of local, regional and national
socio-economic development.

The current portfolio structure that is the modern Local Development Framework
affords increased variability in planning and governance with the notion of spatial
planning and regional specificity being pushed to the forefront of the planning
agenda. The concept of spatial planning is therefore meant to reflect the

200 555 706 6  

 
distinctive nature of individual localities of which the LDF system claims to
achieve.

The postmodern questioning of the efficacy of the modernist planning system is

challenged by Michael Dear (1995, p.28, cited in Healy et al., 1995):

Postmodernismʼs principal target has been the rationality of the modern

movement, especially its foundational character, its search for the universal
truth… the postmodern position is that all meta-narratives are suspect; that the
authority claimed by any single explanation is ill-founded, and hence should be
resisted. In essence, postmodernists assert that the relative merit of any one
meta-narrative over another is ultimately undecidable; and by extension, that any
such attempts to forge intellectual consensus should be resisted.

Post Modern theory therefore argues for a theory that is grounded in a gross
consideration for all aspects of 21st Century living; resisting the need to create
socially divisive mechanisms as a result of the developing role of market forces
and political restructuring.

Postmodern Design

Governing social principles in a then current state of flux are constantly

characterised by a growing shift in architectural preference. The changing
penchant for design has marked a reversion back to pre-modernist elements,
forming a strong stance against the modernist monolithic block with itʼs
overbearing scale and massing; building envelopes defined by simple geometric
shapes that prove severely unsympathetic in relation to human dimensions.

As the planning system accepts the challenge of meeting the issues presented by
contemporary living Kumar (1995) asserts a shared view of architectural practice
in stating that postmodern architecture seeks

To break down modernist distinctions between ʻhigh and ʻlowʼ culture, ʻeliteʼ and
ʻmassʼ art. In place of the autocratic imposition of a monolithic taste it accepts a

200 555 706 7  

 
diversity of ʻtaste culturesʼ, whose needs it tries to meet by offering a plurality of
styles.

The concept of modern architecture is essentially one of geometric functionalism

as much as postmodernism is concerned with the aesthetic potential of place,
postmodern reasoning goes deeper. The theory argues that rationality and
comprehensive building responses to a rational planning remit cannot properly
consider transient populations and social cohorts that are constantly in a state of
flux.

Jane Jacobs in her publication The Death and Life of Great American Cities
(1961) had spontaneity and variety in social interaction at the crux of her
argument. Jacobs posed questions as to whether rational planning models were
able to deliver more organic, incremental forms of community development that
contribute to the vitality of a place in the truest sense.

With the controlling thread of vitality and spontaneity post modern planning theory
challenges all meta-narratives on the grounds that one single intellectual
consensus cannot be held as widely applicable to an environment that delivers so
many variables. That said, postmodern planning theory is a celebration of
complexity, diversity, pluralism and the richness of experience, not reflected in
the modernistic austere interpretation of city spaces. These values twin
postmodernism with liberalism and the concept of a pluralist society formed
around the realisation of free choice (Taylor 2006).

Ellin (2006) comments on the principles of Integral urbanisation a concept that

aims to describe the active components of the urban, necessary to create
cohesive functioning systems – the synergism of connection, communication and
celebration, of intense, hybrid spaces that encourage a convergence of uses.

The city over the past century has been used for very distinct purposes primarily
utilised for sheltering and protecting, urban nuclei have since evolved into
machines for moving people, money and goods (Ellin 2006). With the same
controlling theory as Jacobs (1961), Ellin remarks on the mutually independent

200 555 706 8  

 
nature of people and the related multiplicity of forms the city adopts. Developing
this relationship these same cities and their respective communities only become
sustainable where their interdependencies are allowed to flourish, constantly
stimulating the level of dynamism on display within city spaces (Ellin 2006).

The creation of identity and maelstrom of cultural forms that contribute to the
construction of place is best described by Harvey (2003) as a culmination of
electronic signifiers of cinema, television and video, recording studios and record
players, fashion and youth styles, images that are daily mixed, recycled and
“scratched” together on that giant screen that is the contemporary city. It is this
multiplicity of discourses that the modern planning system and associated design
principles of the current planning system are aimed to entertain, with intent to
widen the urban tolerance for difference (Harvey 2003). On a critically practical
level the postmodern concept as Jacobs details in Death and Life (1961) should
encourage policies and a system of governance that encourages spontaneous
self-diversification among urban populations. This self-diversification and
celebration of lower level empowerment is at the forefront of the current planning
debate; with the potential for a newly elected government to deem local level
authorities and their component communities the right to decide how to structure
and govern the communities within which they live.

The tool of masterplanning is widely utilised when considering citywide

development as a mechanism for the re-stitching of an apparently fragmented
urban fabric. It is criticized through a postmodern lens as a managerial,
administrative tool that operates irrespective of the cultural identity within any
given urban or city region. There is scope for masterplanning however, to
reintroduce holistic synergy to the city. Masterplanning suggests an American
zonal approach to development, however an urban vision does not have to
represent a separation of activities, moreover it affords the opportunity to
introduce more efficient permeability and movement systems that support the
vitality and vibrancy of urban spaces.

200 555 706 9  

 
Conclusion

Despite emerging systems of governance the planning system as we know it

remains a system that supports the controlling capitalist structure and ruling
economic function of the country (Oranje, 2002). A separation between vested,
fiscal interests and a genuine appreciation for the strengthening on community
cohesion proves all but impossible in a forum of global economisation.

The postmodern debate represents the broadening of intellectual horizons (Zukin

2003). Postmodern theory emerges from the merging of transdisciplinary practice
that collectively contributes to the morphing of the planning and design profession
(Zukin 2003). The postmodern movement begins to appreciate the multiplicity of
cultural forms developing nationwide, thus resisting the possibility of developing
fragmented, disjointed societies, tending more toward a nation of shared culture,
or at least, an appreciation of one another through the governing principles of
urbanism delivered through the modern planning system.

Changing capitalist, market led forces are reflected in the form and structure the
current planning system adopts. With the aim to make the current system
inherently more flexible and geographically responsive, the link between capital
value and social governance remains prominent. The current remit for economic
development and rectifying the levels of spatially uneven economic progression is
somewhat grounded in postmodern theory with the appreciation for urban
environments that function independently as a result of unique social systems
specific to a place. Furthermore, on a global scale, the postmodern agenda
incorporates the redesigning of socio-spatial patterns at the hand of reworked
investment and industrial patterns and the resultant patterns of social migration
(Urry 1987).

The creation of identity and place is represented in postmodern theory and

provides planners with a multidisciplinary base of which to form material
development around. The postmodern agenda revisits the importance of the city
nucleus and appreciates the potential for the consumption of albeit increasingly
marketed culture (Zukin 1982).

200 555 706 10  

 
… town planning exists to improve the world, not just to understand it. Therefore
the philosophical reflection on the purposes of planning, such as that which
postmodernism has prompted, is also central to planning theory. In other words,
normative theory – including moral and political philosophy – is also a proper part
of town planning theory.

(Taylor 2006)

200 555 706 11  

 
References

Allmendinger P. Planning in Post Modern Times Routledge, London. 2003

Allmendinger P. & Tewdwr-Jones M. Planning Futures: New Directions for

Planning Theory Routledge, London. 2002

Chapter 9: Planning and the Postmodern Turn Mark Oranje

Cuthbert A. R., Designing Cities: Critical Readings in Urban Design Blackwell,

London, 2003.
Chapter 3: The Postmodern Debate Over Urban Form Sharon Zukin
Urry J. Some social and spatial aspects of services. Environment
and Planning: Society and Space, 5, 5-26. 1987.
Zukin, S. Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1982
Chapter 7: Social Justice, Postmodernism and the City. David Harvey
Jacobs J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities New York,
Vintage. 1961

Ellin N., Integral Urbanism Routledge, Oxon. 2006

Healey, P., Cameron, S., Davoudi, S., Graham, S. and Mandani-Pour, A. (editors)
1995: Managing Cities: The New Urban Context. Chichester, Wiley

Kumar K., From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society. New Theories of the

Contemporary World Blackwell, London. 1995

Taylor, Nigel Urban Planning Theory Since 1945 Sage Publications. London.
2006

Thomas H., Planning and the Planning profession, in Greed C., Social
Town Planning Routledge, London. 1999

200 555 706 12  

 
200 555 706 13