REACTION PAPER: PLANNING THEORY

By: Juanito S. Pasiliao Jr. EHP 210

Beginning in the twentieth century, a number of urban planning theories rose to

prominence, influencing the appearance and experience of the urban
landscape based on their popularity and duration. In the mid-twentieth century,
comprehensiveness was the major goal of city planning. As the independence of
various components of the city became more apparent, it became clear that
land use, transportation, and housing all needed to be designed in connection
to one another. Social and natural scientists, on the other hand, have become
increasingly active in planning practice, research, and teaching over the last 30
years. The demand for a single unified theory of planning has developed as their
impact has grown (Feldt, 1980-1991).

Planning is the methodical process of identifying a need and then determining

the best approach to satisfy that need, all while working within a strategic
framework that allows you to define priorities and establishes operational
standards (Shapiro, 2001). Individual and family decisions, as well as complicated
ones made by organizations and governments, are all part of the planning
process.

Urban planning is a critical instrument for achieving long-term development. It

aids in the formulation of medium- and long-term objectives that balance a
shared vision with the logical allocation of resources required to attain it. Planning
helps municipalities make the most of their budgets by guiding infrastructure and
service expenditures and combining growth demands with the need to
safeguard the environment. It also distributes economic development within a
specific area in order to achieve social goals, and it establishes a framework for
collaboration among local governments (United Nations Human Settlements
Programme (UN-Habitat), 2013).
Social systems are immensely complex and highly interrelated entities whose
entire operation is only partially understood, as experienced planners understood,
as experienced planners understand better than most individuals. A single
change in any area of such a complex system necessarily leads to a cascade of
secondary changes and adjustments across the system. The unintended
alterations are often unintended and can have unfavorable repercussions (Feldt,
1980-1991). The following theories were used in order to compress and digest the
facts and information to come up with a systematical approach with regards to
planning.

Individually, planning defined as the process of making plans for future action, is
a common human trait that manifests itself in a wide range of dreams,
computations, decisions, and acts. As a result, one of the most important
characteristics of public planning is the state-society interface and how authority
is used (Shapiro, 2001). This is one of the reasons why some theorists conflate
planning with government policy in general. However, planning theory is more
directly concerned with the role of government in environmental transformation.
It encompasses what has previously been referred to as land use planning, city
planning, urban and regional planning, town and country planning, and spatial
planning, each referring to a specific sort of planning rather than planning in
general. Because planning is concerned with the future course of action, it is
normative in nature: how planning should be done. Some planning theorists have
even ignored the study of how planning actually occurs as a field of social
investigation, believing that planning theory must promote a specific method of
planning. As a result, much of what has been written as planning theory is on
planning methods, or how to plan; yet these approaches frequently represent
broader worldviews and theoretical ideas.

Due to its action-oriented nature, theories of action are also fundamental to

planning, intersecting with technical, political, and aesthetic problems, and thus
with theories of value. Theories of action in planning can relate to knowledge
generation methodologies as well as theories and methodology for planning and
implementation. As a result, different planning theories have distinct theoretical
constitutions; (Williams, 1970) implicit theories of substance, knowledge, and
action, with varying emphasis on one or the other. The substantive focus is the
defining aspect of planning for certain theorists; for them, the substantive focus is
the defining feature of planning.

A definite subject, as well as recognized theories and methods, are required for
any branch of knowledge to expand and become distinctive. Even those who
dispute its application and relevance, planning theory is a key aspect of planning
as a study and a profession. A theoretical outlook is a fundamental aspect of any
deliberate and considered process such as planning, whether it is formally
acknowledged or implicitly embraced.

We have offered a synthesis of urban theories overviewed in Planning Theory by

Allan G. Feldt, recalling the most essential issues and questions common to most
theories of urban systems, which emphasized the need for a plurality of such
theories. The general explanation for the world’s urbanization can be found in
social organizing capacities as well as economic expansion. Even while the
process of emergence of innovations that drive the impulses is still difficult to
forecast in terms of conditions of its appearance and qualitative content, these
two processes are strongly associated over time. The spatial organization of urban
forms is beginning to be better understood, if we acknowledge that the
explanations and models that account for it must be viewed as open dynamics
rather that static equilibrium (Denise Pumain, 2019). At all levels of city
organization and systems of cities, the persistence of urban hierarchies, as well as
the scaling laws that appear between various attributes of cities, is the result of a
dynamic diffusion of innovations that exploits quantitative inequalities and
qualitative differences between cities to build complex networks of
complementarity and independencies. All citizens corporations, and municipal
governments are concerned in this regard.

References
Anderson, A. A. (2004). Theory of Change. as a tool for strategic planning.
Denise Pumain, J. R. (2019). Conclusion. Perspectives on urban theories, 14-32.
Feldt, A. G. (1980-1991). Planning Theory. 43-52.
MIASTA:, W. P. (2016). IN SEARCH OF AN IDEAL CITY. THE INFLUENCE, 1-12.
Shapiro, J. (2001). Toolkit on Overview of Planning . Civicus, 1-52.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2013). Urban
Planning For City Leaders. 4-12.
Williams, H. E. (1970). General Systems Theory, Systems Analysis, and. 9-33.