Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Communicative regionalism and metropolitan growth management outcomes : a case study of three employment.. 2009

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_2009_fall_tate_laura.pdf [ 4.24MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0067738.json
JSON-LD: 1.0067738+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0067738.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0067738+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0067738+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0067738+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0067738.ris

Full Text

 COMMUNICATIVE REGIONALISM AND METROPOLITAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES A CASE STUDY OF THREE EMPLOYMENT NODES IN BURNABY – AN INNER SUBURB OF GREATER VANCOUVER  by  LAURA ELLEN TATE  B.A., McGill University, 1988 M.A. (Planning), The University of British Columbia, 1991  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Planning)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)  September 2009  © Laura Ellen Tate, 2009   | Page ii    Abstract  In North America, metropolitan growth management (MGM) has been significantly influenced by what I term communicative regionalism.  The latter concept is rooted in communicative planning theory, and thus stresses dialogue and consensus in problem- solving.  To explore the impact of communicative regionalism on actual growth management outcomes, this dissertation investigates a case study on the implementation of communicatively-informed regional plans in metropolitan or GreaterVancouver, Canada, as they have impacted three employment nodes in suburban Burnaby.  The dissertation applied a three-part methodology, involving the collection of empirical data on outcomes, analysis of plan development against communicative planning criteria, and the critical application of an Actor Network Theory (ANT) lens to better examine the relationships and interactions of key government agencies during MGM plan development and implementation.  The analysis suggested mixed results in terms of goal outcomes. Notably, it found that longstanding goals for attracting office employment to a designated Regional Town Centre had not been achieved to the desired degree.  In explaining how this occurred, the analysis supplied empirical evidence of recent critiques made against communicative planning theory.  Such results appear to support calls made by other theorists for the development of a post- communicative approach to theory and practice.  The dissertation concludes with recommendations for five areas of more concerted research to help in this regard.  First, researchers interested in planning processes would be wise to make more in-depth explorations of the link between power and action.  Second, the presence and degree of instability in any given network of actors participating in growth management can create constraints or opportunities for this process.  The role of instability needs to be better reflected and appreciated in communicative and/or post-communicative regionalism.  Third, there must be greater recognition of differentiated stakeholder needs for consultation, as well as place-specific receptivities to consultation short cuts.  Fourth, more detailed work is needed to develop best practices for the information-sharing aspects of growth management. Finally, there is a value in examining further the roles and skill sets of various individuals playing a translation role (i.e., bridging interests between two or more different stakeholders or groups).  This translation role occurs in growth strategy development as well as other types of planning exercise, as a means of enabling both better information exchange and of facilitating the ongoing involvement of relevant stakeholders throughout the plan implementation phase.   | Page iii Table of Contents  Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii List of Interviewees..............................................................................................................x List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................. xi Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... xiii Preface................................................................................................................................xv Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... xix 1.0 Communicative Regionalism – Research Context and Approach .................................1 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Proposed Case Study and Research Questions ..............................................................6 1.3 How This Dissertation is Structured  ...........................................................................17 2.0  Theoretical Foundations of Communicative Regionalism .........................................19 2.1 Why Critique Communicative Planning Theory Instead of Other Theories? ..............20 2.2 Process-Based Planning Theories (How Planning Should Unfold) .............................21 2.3 Origins and Key Theorists of Communicative Planning .............................................29 2.4 Major Critiques of Communicative Planning ..............................................................41 3.0 Research Methodology and Methods ...........................................................................55 3.1 Three Dimensions of the Methodology .......................................................................57 3.2 Research Steps .............................................................................................................73 4.0  The History and Practical Application of MGM in North America ...........................78 4.1 Origins and Early Applications ....................................................................................79 4.2 Post-War MGM Efforts in North America ..................................................................82 4.3 A Review of Outcome-Based Theories .......................................................................89 4.4 Important MGM Terms and Their Relationships to Practical Applications ................98 4.5 Governance ................................................................................................................112   | Page iv 4.6 Examples of Recent MGM Plans – Los Angeles and Toronto ..................................114 4.7 Summing Up ..............................................................................................................132 5.0 Provincial and Regional Relations in MGM Planning ..............................................135 5.1 MGM Foundations in Greater Vancouver: Settlement to 1965 .................................137 5.2 Gathering Steam to Face an Abrupt Halt: MGM Legislation and Plans,       1966-1983 ..................................................................................................................157 5.3 From Loss to Stabilization to Strength: 1984 to 2006 ...............................................179 5.4 Preliminary Conclusions: Communicative Regionalism at Broader Scales ..............209 6.0 The Burnaby Planning Context ..................................................................................218 6.1 Burnaby as a Focus of MGM Study ..........................................................................218 6.2 Burnaby – Origins and Early Days ............................................................................223 6.3 The Burnaby Planning Department ...........................................................................226 6.4 Burnaby‘s Zoning Bylaw ...........................................................................................229 6.5 Burnaby‘s Official Community Plan and Area Plans ................................................233 6.6 Summing Up ..............................................................................................................245 7.0 The Metrotown Employment Node ...........................................................................247 7.1 A Policy-Driven Space with Good Bones .................................................................251 7.2 A Decade of Active Intervention: 1976-1986 ............................................................262 7.3 Metrotown Since 1996 ...............................................................................................287 7.4 Taking Stock: Metrotown, Communicative Regionalism, and MGM       Implementation ..........................................................................................................293 8.0 The Big Bend Area ....................................................................................................305 8.1 Overview of Big Bend‘s Pre-1976 Land Use and Planning History .........................309 8.2 Evolution from 1976 to 1996 .....................................................................................320 8.3 Developments from 1996 to 2006..............................................................................338 8.4 Big Bend, Communicative Regionalism, and MGM Outcomes ...............................349 9.0 The Discovery Place Employment Node ...................................................................359 9.1 Overview of Discovery Place‘s Pre-1976 Land Use and Planning History ..............361   | Page v 9.2 1976 To 2006 and Beyond .........................................................................................365 9.3 Discovery Place, Communicative Regionalism, and MGM Implementation...........................................................................................................374 10.0 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................381 10.1 Summary of Empirical Results ................................................................................382 10.2 Assessing the Relationship Between Communicative Regionalism and Case Study Outcomes .......................................................................................................390 10.3 Implications for Theory-Building, Practice and Research .......................................401 References ........................................................................................................................415 Appendices .......................................................................................................................451     | Page vi  List of Tables  1.1 Comparative Employment Data – Metrotown, Big Bend and Discovery Place .............................................................................................................................15 2.1 Key Theorists and Relevance to Communicative Regionalism  ..................................40 3.1 Indicators for Assessing Extent of Communicative Regionalism in Metropolitan Growth Management ....................................................................................................63 3.2 Questions Drawn From ANT for Analyzing Interagency Relationships  ....................70 3.3 Types of Texts Analyzed in the Case Study  ...............................................................75 4.1 Summary of Early Planning Thinkers and Their Ideas ................................................80 4.2 Comparison of Three Practice-Based Applications of Four Types of Spatial (Outcome) Theories for MGM ...................................................................................111 4.3 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan Public Consultation Goals ..............................119 5.1 Chronology of Significant Provincial and Regional Planning Milestones, 1914 to 1983 ...............................................................................................................156 5.2 Chronology of BC Provincial Administrations..........................................................162 5.3 Assessment of 1975 Livable Region Strategic Plan Against Collaborative Planning Criteria ........................................................................................................174 5.4 Chronology of Significant Provincial and Regional Planning Milestones, 1984 to 2006 ...........................................................................................180 5.5 Overall Assessment of Communicative Regionalism in Completed GVRD  Plans, 1966-1996...................................................................................................................212 6.1 Chronology of Major Burnaby Planning Milestones, 1914 to 1983 ..........................236 6.2 Chronology of Major Citywide Burnaby Planning Milestones, 1986 to 2006 ..........244 7.1 Office Space Comparison – Other Regional Town Centres ......................................250 7.2 Comparison of Office Construction Costs, Selected Destinations ............................290 7.3 Metrotown – Summary of Implementation Actions By Agency ...............................294 8.1 Big Bend – Summary of Agency Implementation Actions .......................................350   | Page vii 9.1 Discovery Place – Summary of Agency Implementation Actions ............................375   | Page viii  List of Figures  1.1 Map of Three Employment Nodes Analyzed in the Case Study   .................................9 1.2 2006 Populations – Greater Vancouver and Selected Other Metropolitan Cities .......11 5.1 Map of Early Settlement Points in Greater Vancouver .............................................138 6.1 Conceptual Illustration of GVRD Growth Concentration Area ................................219 6.2 Photographs of Gilley Brothers Logging Operations ................................................224 6.3 Photograph of the Interurban Tram............................................................................225 6.4 Conceptual Diagram of Burnaby‘s Four Centres .......................................................234 6.5 Map of Skytrain Routes in Proximity to Metrotown, Big Bend and Discovery Place Nodes...............................................................................................242 7.1 Diagram Showing Metrotown‘s Relative Position in Greater Vancouver .................248 7.2 Map Showing Metrotown Planning Area Boundaries and Major Landmarks ..........249 7.3 Images of Metrotown .................................................................................................251 7.4 Photograph of Central Park Tram Station, Circa 1920 ..............................................252 7.5 Photograph of Opening Ceremonies For Paved Kingsway, 1913 .............................253 7.6 Conceptual Diagram of the 1981 Concept Plan for Metrotown‘s Office Precinct .......................................................................................................................263 7.7 Photo of the Newark In Metrotown – Example of Mixed Use Complex  .................289 8.1 Images of Glenlyon Business Park ............................................................................307 8.2 Generalized Map of the Big Bend Area Today .........................................................308 8.3 Images of Big Bend – Central Portion, Southeast of Glenlyon Business Park..........309 8.4 Photograph of The Watson Cedar Mill, 1950 ............................................................310 8.5 Photograph of Squatter‘s Shack at the Foot of Byrne Road, 1930 ............................311 8.6 Map Showing Approximate Location of Improved Regional Connections Via the Alex Fraser Bridge.........................................................................................323 8.7 Diagram of Proposed Traffic Routes to Access the Big Bend Industrial Area .........325    | Page ix 8.8 The 1979 Burnaby Transportation Plan for Big Bend Road Upgrades, as Revised In 1980 ..........................................................................................................327 8.9 Conceptual Illustration Showing Approximate Location of the Marine Way Business Park in Big Bend .........................................................................................336 8.10 Conceptual Land Use Plan: Commercial / Mixed Use Precinct in Big Bend (Byrne Road and Marine Way) ..................................................................................347 9.1 Photo Collage, Discovery Place .................................................................................360 9.2 Photograph of Tram on the Burnaby Lake Tramline .................................................361 9.3 Aerial Photo of Site of Discovery Place, 1954 ..........................................................362 9.4 Photo of ―Freeway‖ in 1955 ......................................................................................364   | Page x List of Interviewees  Provincial Government   Interviewee A ....................................................................................................June 18, 2008 Interviewee B ....................................................................................................July 14, 2008 Interviewee C ....................................................................................................July 22, 2008  Regional Government  Interviewee D ....................................................................................................August 21, 2008 Interviewee G .................................................................................................February 22, 2009   Municipal Government  Interviewee E ....................................................................................................August 2, 2008 Interviewee F ....................................................................................................August 21, 2008 Interview Date   | Page xi List of  Acronyms and Abbreviations  ALC Agricultural Land Commission – the provincial agency charged with overseeing the integrity of the agricultural land reserve. ALR Agricultural Land Reserve – areas designated in 1973 by the Province as set aside for farming activities. ALRT Automated Light Rail Transit (The Skytrain system referenced frequently in the dissertation is an ALRT system). ANT Actor Network Theory. BC Hydro British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority – a provincial crown corporation charged with the production and transmission of electricity. BCIT British Columbia Institute of Technology BC Stats British Columbia Statistics – part of the British Columbia Ministry of Finance and Corporate Services, which produces and verifies statistics. CBD Central Business District CMA Census Metropolitan Area CNR Canadian National Railway – a federal crown corporation FAR Floor Area Ratio – a ratio frequently used in zoning bylaws to express the relationship between lot size and total building size. FDP Friends of Discovery Park GIS Geographic Information System GVRD Greater Vancouver Regional District, the regional district which encompasses all of metropolitan Vancouver.  While today it refers to itself as Metro Vancouver, the GVRD‘s letters patent remain unchanged. HSBC An international banking company with a division in Canada (formerly known as the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank of Commerce). IAC Intergovernmental Advisory Committee – an ad hoc committee established under the British Columbia Local Government Act to provide technical guidance on the creation of a regional growth strategy. ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act – US federal legislation giving MPOs (Metropolitan Planning Organizations) power over federal funding of regional transportation projects LGA Local Government Act, Province of British Columbia.  Replaced a previous statute known as the Municipal Act.   | Page xii LMRPB Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. LRP Livable Region Plan, adopted in 1976. LRSP Livable Region Strategic Plan, adopted in 1995. LRT Light Rail Transit MGM Metropolitan Growth Management MCD Ministry of Community Development – the provincial agency which, as of April 2009, addresses municipal and regional government issues and legislation. MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization – an organization encouraged under US federal legislation NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NDP New Democratic Party – a Canadian political party active in both provincial and federal levels of government. OCP Official Community Plan – the name of planning documents prepared by British Columbia municipalities (and, when planning for unincorporated areas only, by British Columbia regional districts).  This term has specific legal significance because its parameters are spelled out in the LGA. RGS Regional Growth Strategy – the term used in British Columbia Legislation to refer to a plan for metropolitan and other forms of regional growth management. This term has specific legal significance, because its parameters are spelled out in the LGA. RCS Regional Context Statement – the term used to denote a legally required component in the Official Community Plan of any member municipality participating in a Regional Growth Strategy in the province of British Columbia. RTC Regional Town Centre – the term given to significant polycentric nodes in the GVRD‘s various growth strategies. SCAG Southern California Association of Governments Socred A short version of the name of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia, a Canadian political party in operation at the provincial level only through much of the 20 th  C., and now non-existent. TAC Technical Advisory Committee – an ad hoc committee of municipal staff providing advice on regional planning matters.  At one point in time, all regional districts in British Columbia were required to have a Technical Advisory Committee.  This legal requirement no longer exists. UBCM The Union of British Columbia Municipalities.   | Page xiii Acknowledgements  There is a poplar cliché that says ―it takes a village to raise a child‖.  To borrow from that cliché, it also takes a village to enable a doctoral student to graduate; and here is where I need to thank my ―village‖.  First and foremost, to my committee members Penny Gurstein, Tom Hutton, and David Edgington: thank you for the many, many hours you have spent reading various drafts of my work and for asking the questions that needed to be asked. Doctoral advising is time-consuming and not particularly glamorous; and I truly appreciate your constructive efforts in helping me progress with my work.  And, directly related to the research, I am indebted to Arilea Sill, the archivist for the City of Burnaby, whose efforts and well-organized system enabled me to sift through the many documents that might possibly shed some light on critical events in the development of my case study.  I also wish to thank the anonymous interviewees who donated their time to this project.  Second, a big thank-you to Meggin Messenger and Alan Osborne, my Director and Executive Director who (along with other supportive colleagues at the BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development) have helped enable my double-life as provincial employee and doctoral student with tolerant work scheduling arrangements and a genuine curiosity about the research.  On a related note, I would also like to thank the other academic and planning colleagues I have worked with over the years, whose insights and humour have helped me through some challenging situations.  While too numerous to mention all, I have to single out Lynn Guilbalt, Ian Chang, Marg Picard, Terry Crowe, Suzanne Carter-Huffman,   | Page xiv David McLellan, Silvia Vilches, Rob Innes, Joyce English, Judy McLeod, Susan Elbe,  and Alexandra Dmitrasinovic.  Third, I have relied tremendously on personal support from my friends and family.  No matter how good the committee, doctoral research is still intensely challenging at an emotional level.  Friends in the Departure Bay Book Club gave me an outlet for escaping my research when I needed to; and Eileen Baycroft also helped with the task of formatting this document.  Nadia Carvalho, Megan Williams, and Angie Bowles have each done so much to help me cope by listening, problem-solving, and cheerleading.  Other friends have been tolerant of my episodic and inconsistent communication patterns during this period.  My Herle in-laws provided encouragement, occasional dog-sitting, and acceptance when I had to sneak off from family events to write.   My parents Bev and Cliff Tate have been big champions, helping in too many ways to mention.  Their enthusiastic support has kept me going during the rough patches.  Finally, my loving husband Al Herle has been my anchor in this process, keeping me stable, reading many of my drafts, and showing me the snowdrops in the back yard when I most needed to see them.   | Page xv Preface  This dissertation explores the impact of communicative regionalism on actual growth management outcomes in three suburban employment nodes in metropolitan Vancouver.  It examines how interagency relations over time have shaped outcomes in these nodes.  While the product of much research and reflection on planning, as with all research, it is tinged with personal perspectives and experiences.  In my case the later have been informed by more than my scholarly life.  They have also been influenced by my past work in two capacities: first, as a planning practitioner in the case study region being described, and secondly, in my current role as a manager of growth strategies for the senior government agency that sets the legislative parameters for growth management.  So that the reader can better assess how these experiences might have impacted the research (both positively and negatively), this prologue is my attempt to highlight key factors of influence.  My experience in the case study region did not involve any employment with the municipality in which the three nodes studied were located (the City of Burnaby).  During most of my municipal planning career I worked for other suburbs, two of which might arguably be considered ―rivals‖ to Burnaby: the Cities of Richmond and Coquitlam respectively.  If any biases have arisen in my research as a result of this experience, they will be of a somewhat mixed nature.  On the one hand, both Richmond and Coquitlam have been somewhat envious of Burnaby‘s rapid transit amenities (although for Richmond at least this envy is today dissipating with the construction of a new rapid line to its City Centre).  Yet during the 1990s when I worked there, Richmond was making some similar decisions to   | Page xvi Burnaby in terms of providing for business park uses in industrial areas –an approach which has been viewed critically by many proponents of Metro Vancouver‘s growth strategy.  I participated directly in this to some extent as co-author of an industrial lands strategy in 1998, although by this time the policy decision to allow business parks had long since been made.  One could argue that this experience could have made me concurrently envious of, and sympathetic towards, Burnaby.  I should also acknowledge that I sat on a regional committee during much of the 1990s with planners from the GVRD and from other municipalities including Burnaby.  I enjoyed my meetings with these colleagues; and I also recall being consistently impressed at the progressive and thoughtful ideas which came from the GVRD and Burnaby staff.    I further recall many insightful discussions with Richmond colleagues about the realities of plan implementation (locally and regionally); and these helped me learn the art of bringing plans to life.  In this regard, while supportive of regional planning efforts, I could at times be critical where I did not believe that regional plans and policies sufficiently considered local realities, including development pressures and angry citizens (who had the right to question you at public meetings and follow up the next day with phone calls and in-person visits to planning offices).  This perspective has likely carried through into my research, largely in terms of its focus on how things really get done in metropolitan growth management settings, and how the different actors have influenced each other during the implementation process.  My senior government experience began in the Fall of 2007 when, three years into my doctoral program, I decided that I could benefit from returning to paid work.  By this time I had relocated close to the provincial capital (Victoria) for personal reasons, and   | Page xvii serendipitously landed my current position as a regional growth strategies manager.  My employers were intrigued by my doctoral studies.  They were supportive enough both to provide me with leaves of absence when needed for research, and to give me generous interview access to three individuals who had all played pivotal roles in developing the growth strategies legislation still in place today.  This has been a particularly rich setting for a doctoral student.  As a senior government employee who has been treated well, I cannot help but have sympathy for the senior government perspective.  But I can still access memories from my local planning days.  I have also benefitted from an accelerated and fascinating learning curve as I have while transitioned from a more localized planning outlook to a senior government perspective.  For example, while employed municipally, I was simply less aware of the amount and complexity of strategizing required to create and nurture the legislative context for planning activities.  This knowledge gap was later filled when I had the opportunity to have many informal discussions with provincial colleagues (who were not interviewed) about how growth strategies legislation works and what challenges are potentially posed with its implementation.  Any misinterpretation of these conversations is, of course, solely my fault; but the opportunities for reflection they provided me helped form a critical part of my thinking.  Additionally, I have had the opportunity to present my research results to senior management staff in my agency; and I remain hopeful that my research might in some small way assist in ongoing efforts to improve the planning context for British Columbia‘s local governments.    | Page xviii As a final thought on important personal influences, I should also summarize my views on planning as a practice.  I was raised with the notion that one should strive to do meaningful work; and for me the notion of ―meaningful‖ is connected to making a difference.  To this end, I have always believed that writing a plan is only part of a planner‘s job –and that the other part should involve bringing the plan to reality either through follow-up work or at the least by anticipating the real on-the-ground opportunities for, and barriers to, implementation. Related to this is a belief that planners must empower themselves to make a difference, in whatever way they can do best given the talents, personalities, knowledge, and roles with which they are endowed.  This position of empowerment necessarily involves reflecting upon the opportunities and constraints that exist in any unique professional situation.  It is my hope that this dissertation will help those who read it to further consider their own scope for empowerment in a planning context.   | Page xix Executive Summary  The broader purpose of this dissertation is to improve our knowledge of metropolitan growth management (MGM) planning and, in this regard, to ultimately foster positive outcomes.  Its immediate goal is to better understand the implications of communicative (dialogue-based) planning applied at a regional scale.  My basic premise is that theories like communicative planning (which can inform growth management and other types of planning exercise) pay insufficient attention to non-communicative actions and, ultimately, their consequences for on-the-ground outcomes.  In analysing the specific case of Vancouver, Canada, where regional planning efforts have been strongly influenced by communicative planning theory, the dissertation calls attention to, and recommends next steps for, bridging this gap.  While not calling for the wholescale abandonment of dialogue and deliberation, it suggests that an imbalanced emphasis on communicative or deliberative action must be tempered with greater appreciation for power-cognizant and instrumental action.  Regional-scale communicative planning, or communicative regionalism as I have labelled it, is informed by Habermasian critical theory; and the latter has been interpreted in the planning context by scholars like John Forester, Patsy Healey, and Judith Innes.  Communicative planning encourages the development of plans through processes embodying the following characteristics: an emphasis on communicative or deliberative rationality and action (as opposed to instrument rationality and action); egalitarian public debate; the reduction of distortions in dialogue caused by the misuse of power; and the goal of consensus.  The   | Page xx desired outcome for such processes is that everyone is heard, and that there is universal agreement on the resulting plan and its recommended next steps.  Critiques of communicative planning theory, however, call attention to four major weaknesses: its universalist view of the benefits and application of consensus; a problematic understanding and treatment of power; an unexamined preference for deliberative over representative forms of democracy; and insufficient acknowledgement of the value of instrumental action in achieving desired goals.  Such weaknesses suggest that positive on-the-ground outcomes may not necessarily result from communicative planning processes –or at least not from communicative planning alone.  Metropolitan or Greater Vancouver was chosen as a case for examining these issues because of its early adoption of communicative regionalism (beginning with the Livable Region Plan completed in 1975), and because of its reputation for livability.  My research found that communicative regionalism has neither been the sole cause of that livability, nor has its influence been entirely positive.  Some successes did arise from communicative processes in the case.  Yet two major types of initiative which arguably played the strongest role in implementing growth management goals from 1975 and beyond (the establishment of an agricultural land reserve which has provided growth containment, and construction of rapid transit infrastructure) were initiated via ―command and control‖ decisions rather than communicative processes, by senior (provincial) governments on both left and right sides of the political spectrum (see Tomalty, 2002, and Chapter 5 of this dissertation for further discussion).    | Page xxi Moreover, at a more detailed level, communicative regionalism has not yielded the extent of employment concentration desired in successive metropolitan growth management (MGM) plans.  My research studied three employment nodes in one city of the region to get a clearer sense of how on-the-ground outcomes compared with MGM plan goals for employment concentration.  In one of the three nodes studied (Metrotown), the achievement of desired employment concentrations paled in comparison to office employment growth in dispersed business parks throughout the region.  Conversely, the other two nodes which had not been designated for employment concentrations in MGM plans became repositories for such business parks.  These results, while the culmination of a complex array of decisions and circumstances suggests that communicative regionalism has not produced one important desired goal –and yet this goal had been soundly endorsed by stakeholders who had been engaged in a highly deliberative planning process.  Furthermore, an overconfidence in the communicative process launched in the 1970s may have ultimately caused the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) to underestimate the power and authority of the senior level of government.  Such underestimation, combined with political and economic instability of the 1980s, ultimately led to the cancellation of regional land use planning powers in 1983.  Communicative planning efforts did help to keep MGM activities on life support until the restoration by the province of some land use authority in the mid 1990s.  Yet the ability to continue with MGM activities after 1983 was also strongly aided by other efforts and factors not acknowledged in communicative planning models, such as strong trusting relationships between individuals in the different levels of   | Page xxii government, and the skills of particular individuals in ―translating‖ the interests and concerns of their respective agencies to others in positions of power.  The research approach used in my case study contrasted actual outcomes (the first research dimension), such as those described above, with detailed analyses of plan development and implementation from the 19870s through to 2006.  Two additional research dimensions were used for the latter purpose.  Thus, a second dimension consisted of criteria for assessing the extent to which communicative regionalism was actually occurring in the case study region. This second, or communicative, dimension was important because it provided validation for the choice of case region –a city without communicative regionalist processes would not be a good test for the impacts of communicative regionalism.  Moreover, performance on the criteria was helpful in pinpointing areas of difficulty in the processes undertaken in the case region.  The six communicative criteria focused around: providing an extensive and multifaceted information base to all stakeholders; a strong facilitation role for planners; stakeholder involvement in plan development; stakeholder involvement in plan implementation; the creation of important cultural shifts through and after the process; and the goal of consensus.  The third research dimension was instigated in response to literature critiquing communicative planning theory and the four problem areas listed above.  It sought to compensate for such weaknesses by examining what else might have been occurring in   | Page xxiii tandem with the communicative processes unfolding.  This third research dimension sought to understand some of the relational factors which may have helped and hindered communicative planning, and to pay greater attention to the instrumental and power- cognizant actions which ultimately shaped outcomes.  This dimension was predicated on a body of theory known as Actor Network Theory (ANT), which is analytical rather than normative.  That is, unlike communicative planning theory, ANT does not prescribe a particular approach for conducting or structuring planning work.  Instigated through the works of Callon and Latour, among others, ANT is particularly interested in how relationships between actors are localized.  This interest focuses on with how attachments between actors, regardless of physical distances or status differences separating them, are expressed in, and then further shaped by, tangible objects (which can include plans and buildings), and in place-specific ways (Latour, 2007).  The local nature of this analysis directly contrasts with the more universalist approach inferred in communicative planning theory (for discussion of the latter see Huxley and Yiftachel, 2000).  To capture ANT‘s localization concern, I developed four questions for examining case study events, drawn from several ANT precepts in the literature. First, to what degree did connections between government actors in the case study and the presence of what was arguably an institutional growth management network influence both MGM processes and outcomes in the case study?  Second, to what extent did degrees of instability or fluctuation in the network (contrasted with pockets of relative stability) impact MGM processes and outcomes?  Third, what roles have various texts –both specific to the case and in the form of ―meta-texts‖ or broader theories of ideal outcomes for MGM played in governing   | Page xxiv relationships between actors and efforts to implement MGM goals?  Finally, how have network boundaries (which delineate membership and participation) shifted in the course of MGM implementation, and how have these shifts impacted goal achievement and related outcomes?  By applying the communicative regionalism criteria and the ANT-derived questions, my research found several important things.  While communicative regionalism was arguably present in the case, performance on two of the six criteria was somewhat weak.  With the information-sharing criterion, what might have otherwise been a strong performance was weakened by a critical failure to adequately consider relevant information on local and global office market dynamics.  Had such information been better acknowledged in the planning process, and thus reflected in ensuing plans, expectations for the regional town centres desired in regional plans could have been tempered, or else additional actions might have been instigated to mitigate the market tends that saw business parks dominate the regional office market (thereby weakening the Metrotown node‘s performance as a transit-accessible employment centre).  With the criterion for stakeholder involvement in implementation, performance was inconsistent, with the needs and interests of both senior government and the development community insufficiently considered or addressed.  The ANT-derived questions in my methodology allowed me to better pinpoint how and why the weak performances on the communicative regionalism criteria occurred.  For example, network instability played a significant role in preventing the solid, consistent, and   | Page xxv complementary involvement of the provincial government in regional plan implementation. Such instability was in itself complex, particularly influenced by: major shifts in political actors; economic restructuring and a major recession in the 1980s; and an ongoing history of political rivalry between the Province and its largest city, in turn home to half of the Province‘s population.  It resulted in provincial actions which could alternately help MGM plan implementation (funding and building a rapid transit link to Metrotown) and potentially weaken it (e.g.: withdrawal from an agreed land assembly program in Metrotown; prioritizing land development in the Big Bend and Discovery Place nodes through highway investments and the construction of business parks catering to high tech clients on provincially-owned land).  The ANT questions also helped draw attention to some of the connections between actors which facilitated matters during such times of instability.  Such connections included positive relations between the planning staff of member municipalities and the GVRD, enabling important technical information exchange in the development of Metrotown and ultimately reinforcing regional planning goals.  They also included a strong pre-existing friendship and other good relationships between staff at the GVRD and a key provincial agency.  These relationships facilitated the practice of ―regional planning by stealth‖ from 1983 to 1995 when regional planning was technically illegal, enabling both agencies to manoeuvre through this period while avoiding an arbitrary provincial blockage to the activity.    | Page xxvi By illustrating more deeply relational dynamics of a positive and negative nature, case study results indicated several critical and practical gaps in communicative regionalism.  In this regard, the findings have implications for the works of communicative planning theorists Forester, Healey, and Innes who have championed this approach.  The findings also reinforce the critical analysis of others, including Huxley and Yiftachel, Flyvbjerg, Murray, McGuirk and, to a lesser extent, Fainstein.  For example, while both Forester‘s and Innes‘s works recognize that planners have some ability to shape attention and to adjust planning processes, neither scholar sufficiently acknowledges the strength of the forces which also exist in opposition to planners‘ power (e.g. a senior government or a developer who does not build a desired land use).  Moreover, both Forester‘s work and Healey‘s earlier work also failed to acknowledge the contingencies of place (e.g. governance structure; and a history with, and relative support for, growth management) which cause the relational dynamics potentially reinforcing or impeding communicative planning processes (and desired outcomes).  Finally, all three theorists have missed opportunities to provide planners with constructive suggestions for coping with power differentials in the deliberation process; and launching instrumental (non-deliberative) forms of action needed to help realize the very goals developed through communicative planning processes.  What does this mean for future planning efforts?  While one option could be to remedy these gaps within a communicative planning framework, my concern is that the communicative planning theory informing communicative regionalism ultimately has too much ―baggage‖ for this approach to be productive.  In particular, its links with modernism and universal prescription may be too strong.  These are particularly evident when communicative methods   | Page xxvii are adopted without sufficient consideration of whether they will be fruitful in a given context.  This assessment arises from communicative planning theory‘s: 1) frequent misapplication in real world settings; 2) genuine gaps vis-à-vis the workings of allocative and authoritative power in dialogue processes; 3) insufficient attention to context; and 4) commensurate (unrealistic) expectations for planners.  In examining communicative planning theory, this dissertation appears to support calls made by other theorists for the development of a post-communicative approach to theory and practice.  This includes Alexander‘s (2001) direct plea for a post-communicative theory which builds upon communicative theory‘s desires for improved understanding between stakeholders, but which remedies its shortcomings by clearly rejecting the notion of dialogue as a panacea.  A post-communicative theory would also be compatible with Sandercock‘s (2004a) recommendation for more of a tool-box or situational approach to the use of theory. I believe that my dissertation will provide some useful material for others seeking to undertake these tasks, particularly within the context of MGM.  MGM presents a uniquely complex type of planning challenge, given the multi-jurisdictional issues it addresses.  No two metropolitan regions will find the same solutions to their growth management issues, but the following five suggestions might be of use in devising portions of the toolkit of direct relevance to MGM.  First, new theory (or at the very least a substantially revised communicative theory) must go much farther in acknowledging the link between power and action.  This will involve   | Page xxviii confronting the deep-seated distrust of power that Baum (1987) identified among many planners.  In this regard, further case studies on the different ways in which power might be channelled through MGM processes (in positive and negative ways) would be of value. Related to this is the role of trust in MGM processes.  Trust in itself may arguably represent a type of power, or at least be a precondition for the effective channelling of power.  In this vein, it also merits further research in MGM settings.  Another point to make about power is the need for more research in the MGM process into the possible network uses of power bases, possibly yielding typologies of such usage within MGM contexts.  A final point regarding power is the need for more scholarly attention to ways of blending the needs of instrumental action with the needs of deliberative action.  This will necessarily involve the consideration of how advocates of MGM planning recognize and make use of various forms of opportunity and constraint which may arise in specific contexts.  Such variables may include time and resource allocations as well as political and project management timing considerations.  The second suggestion is to more closely examine and appreciate the impact of instability on planning processes and outcomes.  Additional case study research, coupled with insights from behavioural and organizational psychology as well as sociology and political science, might help us develop new models for understanding how to better cope with, and take advantage of, instability in ways which might create better opportunities for MGM planning. In a related vein, more in-depth understandings of the relationship between instability and ―interpretive drift‖ (Healey, 1997) from agreed goals would also be of value.    | Page xxix The third suggestion is to place greater emphasis in research and practice on effective differentiated stakeholder consultation approaches.  This suggestion relates to the notion of fluctuating network boundaries, and advocates that planners undertaking MGM constantly find ways of ensuring that network boundaries are sufficiently flexible to promote appropriate stakeholder involvement at the right point in time.  This raises the related need to ensure that large-scale public processes do not detract from consultation with other stakeholders (including representatives from other levels of government as well as developers) who may be more comfortable operating through less communicative approaches (e.g. preferring instead political influence approaches).  This also ties in with the critique regarding possible conflicts between direct and representatitve democracy.  Senior government agencies tend to deal with a much larger number of localities than do regional agencies; and they thus have limited resources for engaging in direct democracy.  As a result, they are far more reliant on representative democracy than may be the case with regional and local land use planners.  Without sensitive accommodation of these differences, dialogue between senior and local agencies might otherwise be impossible.  Further research could help provide new techniques for incorporating the results of such ―off-line‖ types of discussion into broader public dialogue processes.   A fourth and related suggestion would add to such research the development of best practices for using the information-sharing aspect of MGM planning, and broader regional planning efforts, as a way to build new (or strengthen existing) bases of support.    | Page xxx The fifth and final suggestion is to conduct further research into the skill sets needed for effective translation of goals and concerns between agencies, as well as specific conceptual tools translators draw upon.  This research might be of particular use in helping to bring forward perspectives which are difficult or unpopular, and could facilitate the ongoing involvement of relevant stakeholders throughout the plan implementation phase.  And, speaking more broadly, greater efforts within academic planning programmes to nurture the qualities which might ultimately assist with translation (over the longer term of students‘ careers) would be beneficial.  Chapter 1 | Page 1 Chapter 1 – Communicative Regionalism - Research Context and Approach  1.1 Introduction  Metropolitan growth management (MGM) has been directed at large cities in North America and Western Europe 1  for over a century.  The term growth management is largely of North American usage.  It refers to land use planning that specifically responds to growth pressures through a range of policy and legal tools to channel new development into desired locations, where the desirability of those locations is set by some predetermined criteria.  Over at least the last three decades, MGM planning in many North American jurisdictions has been informed by a theory which I describe as communicative regionalism.    That is, metropolitan planning efforts in selected jurisdictions have relied on Habermasian (communicative) rationality, or a stress on dialogue and deliberation (ideally leading to consensus) as a means of problem-solving, as compared with an emphasis on technical and legalistic approaches to growth management.  In using the term communicative regionalism, I refer largely to instances where metropolitan land use planning is informed by Habermasian rationality as expressed in communicative planning theory and where specific planning processes are structured along those lines.  This practice has been unfolding in North American metropolitan areas to varying degrees since the 1980s.  It has been documented by scholars like Margerum, (2002);Visser, (2004); Bollens,(1992); and Innes, (1992).   Interestingly, however, one of the most lauded examples of MGM in North America —Portland Oregon—  1  While the notion of MGM is frequently discussed in North American planning literature, in the United Kingdom it is most commonly associated with the term regional spatial planning.  Chapter 1 | Page 2 has relied significantly on a regulatory approach which was not built through communicative regionalism. See especially Lewis (1996) for discussion of its evolution.   Communicative regionalism need not encompass a particular governance structure.  That said, it may often coincide with something known as "voluntary regionalism" (Visser, 2004), where a regional planning agency lacks the legal ability to implement plans and must instead promote implementation or ensure conformance to regional goals by its component or affected municipalities.  In such cases the agency must therefore rely on other (non- legislative) means to encourage municipalities to manage growth within their own boundaries in ways which will provide a broader regional benefit, such as the reduction of new low density and inefficiently serviced greenfield sites (e.g. urban sprawl).   According to Visser, voluntary regionalism tends to be more effective where the regional planning agency is providing other services of value to participating local governments, such as data collection and research services –in addition to setting regional goals.  However, Margerum‘s (2002) growth management research in Queensland, Australia suggests that communicative regionalism can also unfold in environments where there is more structural support (in terms of mandates and tangible powers) for regional initiatives.  In this dissertation, I argue that inherent weaknesses in communicative regionalism, and in its foundational anchor of communicative planning theory, may detract from realizing certain MGM outcome goals 2 , because of its imbalanced emphasis on communicative (process- based) action, combined with an unwillingness to examine the value of instrumental actions  2  These goals are described in detail in Chapter 4.  Chapter 1 | Page 3 and their interplay with dialogue.  The latter are not only needed to realize the very outcomes which may be articulated as desired through dialogue-based planning, they also shape ongoing relationships between the various actors implicated in a given planning exercise. Communicative regionalism stresses a particular process for planning efforts –that is, it discusses how planning should be undertaken (e.g. who should do it, using what knowledge). As a process, it has several weaknesses (discussed in more detail in Chapter 2).  First among these is a somewhat modernistic belief that the universal application of consensus methods to any given problem will produce positive outcomes.  Second is a problematic treatment of power, given the reality that different actors in a planning process interact with unequal power relations. (While power generally relates to an ability to act, the complexities associated with defining it will be discussed further in Chapter 2.) The third weakness consists of an unexamined preference for direct as opposed to representative democracy, which may be problematic when larger scales of government are involved.  Finally,as noted above, the fourth centres on an approach to action which de-emphasizes the instrumental (i.e., tactical) aspects which might otherwise facilitate the realization of mutually agreed goals.  Of course, MGM is also informed by theories focusing more specifically on desired urban form outcomes, such as the containment of growth or the focusing of new development in one or more specific nodes.  This distinction between process and outcomes draws from Faludi (1973) and Yiftachel (1989).  The two types of theory need not be incompatible; however, as my research will show, there are significant tensions between them.  These tensions are most evident in their different notions surrounding the type of action to be taken  Chapter 1 | Page 4 in a given planning exercise.  Research into ways of redressing this imbalance is essential. This is particularly important given today's preoccupations with global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.  (A significant portion of the latter is attributed to the excessive use of single-occupant vehicles 3 , which are in turn presumed to result from uncontrolled urban sprawl, i.e., failures in MGM).  My aim is to discuss these tensions between process and outcomes in a grounded way (in the context of a specific time and place) with a view to ultimately improving the process side of how we undertake MGM, so as to make better outcomes possible.  Such outcomes recognize that more than just deliberative action is needed to achieve desired results.  By critiquing communicative regionalism and communicative planning theory, my intention is not to demonize communicative approaches to planning, or suggest that their deliberative aspects be abandoned wholescale.  Rather, my goal is to point out areas where they are significantly incomplete.  Armed with this information, theorists will then have two choices: to either use it to fill in the gaps of the existing theory, or to move towards entirely new theoretical approaches.  If communicative regionalism (as an application of communicative planning theory in addressing regional scale growth management) has produced problematic outcomes, what are these? Of particular concern in this dissertation are difficulties at pivotal milestones in implementing plans for specific urban nodes, or concentrations of housing and jobs intended  3  Carbon dioxide emissions are believed to play a key role in climate change.  At a global level, 17% of those emissions were produced by motor vehicles in 1990 (Replogle, 1990, n.p.).  In some jurisdictions, however, that figure is much higher.  For example, in British Columbia, where most electricity is generated through hydrological power (versus coal-fired plants), motor vehicles are the source of 38% of carbon dioxide emissions (British Columbia, 2008).  Chapter 1 | Page 5 to reduce the need for lengthy commutes.  (These nodes respond to a particular set of MGM outcome theories, reviewed further in Chapter 3.)  While these nodes play a regional role, their development relies on many local-level (micro-scale) decisions.  Such decisions will include: which developments to approve or reject; how they should be designed; and what infrastructure is needed to serve them.   Where these nodes are connected by rapid transit (e.g. as part of a conscious strategy to enhance their environmental benefit), regional and /or senior government investment decisions may also play a role in nodal outcomes.  Thus MGM, perhaps to an even more complex extent than neighbourhood planning, depends on the cooperation of, and willingness to act, by multiple stakeholders.  If the actions taken to engage this cooperation are predicated on communicative assumptions, and communicative theory contains inherent weaknesses with regard to charting a course for institutional implementation actions, there could be gaps in desired results.  By better understanding the interplay of multi-stakeholder decisions (including their end results), we might learn how to improve the relationship between critical micro-scale planning work and the regional urban form objectives sought in broader MGM efforts, and the planning processes which influence them both.  There have, of course, been some earlier efforts to consider both the uses and limits of dialogue in regional planning processes.  Such efforts have been made both from the perspective of how governance structures could be shaped by, or could enable,  a more  Chapter 1 | Page 6 conscious use of dialogue (Foster, 1997; Hamin, 2003; and Visser, 2004), and from a broader communicative planning emphasis (Innes, 1992; Margerum, 2002).  Yet the relationship of communicative regionalism to actual MGM outcomes (i.e., to metropolitan form and the successful creation of suburban employment nodes) has not yet been sufficiently explored. There have been separate assessments of MGM outcomes (Deakin, 1989; Lewis, 1996; Nelson and Moore, 1996; Nelson and Peterman, 2000; Dawkins and Nelson, 2003; Nelson and Dawkins, 2004), as well as recent efforts by metropolitan regions themselves to assess the results of their MGM implementation through benchmarks, and State of the Environment Reporting (GVRD 2000, 2001a, 2002, 2004a and 2004b, 2005a; and SCAG, 2007a).  There have also been broader comments on the relationships of communicative planning in general to outcomes (Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998; Richardson, 1996; Flyvbjerg, 1998; Healey, 2003).  Nonetheless, the link between process- and outcome-based issues at the metropolitan scale has been missing.  This lack of attention to outcomes is unfortunate, given the growing needs and expectations for MGM to solve some pressing environmental sustainability concerns (Beatley, 2000; Zovanyo, 1998; Wheeler, 2004).  1.2 Proposed Case Study and Research Questions  As noted above, my hypothesis is that communicative regionalism (as understood from the literature on communicative planning theory written to date) may potentially hinder the implementation of MGM goals.  To explore it, I will focus on a case study in the metropolitan region of Vancouver, Canada (Greater Vancouver).  I argue that, in many respects, Vancouver has epitomized communicative regionalism even before its more widespread popularity in the 1980s and 1990s.  It has also manifested communicative  Chapter 1 | Page 7 regionalism in both a purely voluntary form as well as under somewhat more structured (i.e., regulated) conditions.  Such variation within a single place provides for a particularly rich analysis, and useful learning potential for metropolitan agencies possessing both weak and strong planning powers.  This case study will look in very specific detail at institutional planning and policy discussions and actions shaping three sub-cases: suburban employment nodes with major implications for the implementation of Greater Vancouver‘s MGM plans.  These nodes are located within a single suburban municipality (the City of Burnaby) and are respectively known as: Metrotown, the Big Bend Area, and Discovery Place (see Figure 1.1 for map showing locations).  In doing so, it examines the relationships between actors at senior, regional and local government levels as the nodes were created and shaped.  One of these nodes (Metrotown) was also planned to include residential uses; and while ultimately the desired housing concentrations for these nodes have been achieved with remarkable success, the employment expectations set out in various regional-scale land use plans have not been fulfilled (GVRD, 2004a and 2004b).  One might surmise that these results relate to a greater level of difficulty in creating policy- driven employment spaces, as compared with policy-driven residential nodes.  Yet there is little research evidence to either confirm or refute this conclusion, other than empirical results demonstrating the growing proliferation of office uses outside of nodal areas 4  throughout North America, and recent literature hinting that there is still an insufficient  4  A type of pattern which Lang  (2003) labels ―edgeless cities‖, and which is discussed further in Chapter 4.   Chapter 1 | Page 8 understanding on the part of land use planners regarding some of the basic locational needs of industry (see Ryan, 2005).  Interestingly,  while Ryan makes no such claim about planners per se, her 2005 study of longitudinal data for office and industrial properties in metropolitan San Diego, combined with her reading of Sivitanidou‘s  (1996) work, suggests that there may have been some past over-simplification of the extent to which freeway access is more significant than agglomeration economies in determining office location.  In particular, her findings suggest that, while highway access remains important to office and industrial employment uses, agglomeration economies appear to take precedence over proximity to both freeway access and light rail transit station access in determining office and industrial location preferences.  Moreover, office properties do not seem to benefit from, or illustrate greater willingness to pay for, access to nearby light rail transit stations.   Chapter 1 | Page 9 Figure 1.1 Map of Three Employment Nodes Analyzed in Case Study   Source: Created on Author‘s Behalf by Anders Wong  Greater Vancouver is an exemplary setting for an analysis of metropolitan planning processes and their outcomes.  While known today as Metro Vancouver 5 , for most of the time period analysed in this case (1966-2006), the region was referred to as Greater Vancouver; and the political agency charged with regional responsibilities was known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD).  Greater Vancouver has a strong tradition of MGM dating back  5  In 2007 the regional agency previously known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District endorsed a name change to ―Metro Vancouver‖, largely for marketing and ―branding‖ purposes; however, the agency‘s letters patent still reflect the previous name (Interviewee B, 2008).  Chapter 1 | Page 10 more than four decades; and my choice of Vancouver for this case study is based in large part on the region‘s apparent success in more global terms.  Greater Vancouver is an attractive place, recognized as the world‘s most livable city by the Economic Intelligence Unit (CNN, 2005).  It is home to over 2.1 million people 6  (Statistics Canada, 2007a) –half of the population of British Columbia—and the source of 47% of provincial jobs 7 .  As shown in Figure 1.2 below, this puts Vancouver as Canada‘s third largest metropolis.  On an international scale, it is comparable in population size to cities such as San Diego and Greater Manchester.   It is also a region which has become increasingly diverse in its population.  As of 2006, 40% of Metro Vancouver was foreign- born (Statistics Canada, 2006 Census), making its population proportionally more diverse than Miami, Los Angeles or New York City (Statistics Canada 2006, Catalogue No. 97-557- XWE2006001).  Two-thirds of Vancouver‘s foreign-born residents came originally from Asia and the Middle East, with the top source countries including China (17% of GVRD foreign-born residents); India (14%); Hong Kong (9%); and the Philippines (8%) (ibid.). Such diversity has enabled a complex set of corporate as well as socio-cultural networks linking the city‘s metropolitan area to the Asia-Pacific, fuelled in part by immigration and tourism (Hutton, 1998, pp. 148-150).   6  BC Stats, the statistical agency of the Government of British Columbia frequently challenges census counts, and in previous years has had some success in getting census totals revised.  At present, BC Stats provides a slightly higher population estimate for 2006, at 2,180,737. 7  Based on 977,615 employed members of the Metro Vancouver labour force working there in 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2006 Census), and 2,078,810 employed members of the BC labour force working in BC in 2006 (op. cit).  Chapter 1 | Page 11 Figure 1.2 2006 Populations – Greater Vancouver & Selected Other Metropolitan Cities  0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 V an co uv er S an  D ie go M an ch es te r M on tr ea l To ro nt o Lo nd on N ew  Y or k    Sources: Statistics Canada 2007a for Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto; UK Office for National Statistics in Bolton, 2009 for Greater Manchester; and London; US Census Bureau 2009 for San Diego and New York  If Greater Vancouver is the product of communicative regionalism (as opposed, for example, to being largely the product of rational comprehensive planning), then Greater Vancouver‘s array of parks, protected agricultural lands, and relatively compact settlement areas around many of its rapid transit nodes would seem at first blush to recommend communicative regionalism as a strategy.  Such a position would not be far from the perspective taken by Harcourt et al (2007) who, while not communicative theorists, have been strong practitioner advocates for many of communicative theory‘s principles. Of course, such an assumption  Chapter 1 | Page 12 presumes that the relationship between communicative planning and positive outcomes is an automatic one –an assumption which this dissertation questions.  But what positive outcomes are evident?  Over the last decade land use patterns appear to have made sustainable transportation choices like public transit and walking more feasible.  For example, an increasing amount and proportion of new housing in the region has been built in close proximity to rapid transit stations. While in 1996 roughly 71% of all journeys to work in the region occurred via single-occupant vehicle, by 2006 this proportion had decreased to just over 67% (Statistics Canada in GVRD, 2008, p. 3).   The proportion of transit commutes 8  in this period grew more than two percentage points from just over 14% to nearly 17% during this same period (ibid.).  Yet on closer examination, communicative regionalism has neither been the sole driver of these successes, nor has its influence been fully positive.  This is particularly apparent when one considers the evolving relationships between different levels of government with a stake in MGM outcomes, and when one examines the development of planned regional employment nodes in the form of regional town centres (RTCs), which may not have entirely fulfilled expectations.  Communicative regionalism has clearly produced some successes. For example, it may have ultimately helped the metropolitan planning agency to survive during a critical period in the 1980s, after its regional planning powers had been legislated out of existence by the senior government in 1983 (an event discussed in Chapter 5).  This seemingly arbitrary legislation was the culmination of a lengthy power struggle between the metropolitan planning agency and the provincial government.  Nonetheless, a dependence on communicative regionalism may have also exacerbated tensions during this power struggle;  8  Walking and cycling remained roughly constant on a proportional basis.  Chapter 1 | Page 13 and such heightened tensions in the wake of sudden economic instability ultimately sparked the 1983 crisis.  At the same time, overemphasis on communicative regionalism may have obscured the rise of market trends which were at odds with an important part of the region‘s growth management vision, namely the rising popularity of business parks (see Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 for further discussion).  Moreover, as I will argue in the case study discussion (Chapters 5 through 9), communicative regionalism may have also led to some missed opportunities for MGM goal implementation at the micro-level which could have set an important, beneficial momentum for ongoing MGM efforts.  Within the Greater Vancouver case, it is my belief that critical successes (and failures) in these three employment nodes may have ultimately been driven by different approaches to, and techniques for, channelling power.  This belief complements (without necessarily validating) Tomalty‘s (2002) view that the provincially-established agricultural land reserve has done more to manage growth than any regional planning efforts.  While at times such approaches and techniques were compatible with the dialogue emphasis and stakeholder inclusion principles of communicative regionalism, certain milestones in Greater Vancouver's MGM history (with direct implications for these nodes) were not.  For example, the establishment of an automated light rail transit line (ALRT) known as Skytrain occurred as a result of somewhat unilateral senior government action, even though transit route selection did reinforce critical precepts of a previous regional MGM strategy, known as the Livable Region Plan (LRP).  Moreover, I argue that two of the three nodes (the Big Bend  Chapter 1 | Page 14 and Discovery Park nodes), while implicitly accepted in MGM plans since the mid-1960s, eventually came into conflict with MGM objectives for the third node (Metrotown).  Specifically, Metrotown was expected to provide the bulk of Burnaby‘s employment over the longer term; and most of this employment was expected to be office-related.  As a result of varied factors to be discussed in Chapters 7 through 8, employment and population in Metrotown have grown extensively; but on a proportional basis more new job growth in Burnaby has occurred outside Metrotown than within it (see Table 1.1 below) 9 .   The latter trend is not expected to abate any time soon.  (Together the Big Bend Area and Discovery Place have the equivalent of nearly three-quarters of the Metrotown jobs.)  While Discovery Place is getting close to reaching its planned capacity (Cushman Wakefield LePage, 2009a), Big Bend is only half-way there.  Moreover, Big Bend could eventually come close to Metrotown‘s current employment total by reaching 18,000 jobs in all categories of employment (Interviewee F, 2008).   Unlike Metrotown, however, neither of these nodes is directly served by rapid transit; although Discovery Place is located near a major bus corridor connecting two rapid transit lines (ibid.).       9  Note that employment statistics are a reflection of all employment job types and do not distinguish between office, retail or industrial jobs.  Comparable data over time is not available, as data by specific neighbourhood frequently involves custom data run by Statistics Canada at considerable extra cost to the local government.  At this point in time,  no custom order appears to have been made for historical data for these employment nodes.  Chapter 1 | Page 15  Table 1.1 Comparative Employment Data –Metrotown, Big Bend and Discovery Place  2006 Total Jobs Proportion of Total Municipal Employment Metrotown 22,900 20% Big Bend Area 9,500  8% Discovery Place  8,150  7% Rest of Burnaby 74,460 65%  Source: Metro Vancouver, 2009a, based on 2006 Census data  As I will show later in this dissertation, such conflicts did not initially arise so much due to the implementing municipal government‘s failure to heed the MGM plan, as they did from the inherent contradictions in the plan‘s very goals.  And, to some extent, these contradictory goals were exacerbated in part by an over-reliance on communicative regionalism and an overconfidence in its ability to achieve results.  These MGM goal contradictions became apparent in the face of significant market and political instability, including an economic recession which hit British Columbia harder than many other Canadian provinces and senior government removal of existing regional planning powers, which will be discussed further in Chapter 5.  Another important trend which exacerbated plan contradictions was the growing popularity of the business park configuration to house large concentrations of employment. While a commonly understood notion in the popular press, and in market handbooks on how to develop business parks (see for example Frej et al., 2001), scholarly literature explaining the emergence of business parks is scant, with the exception of some discussion in Lang (2003).  Furthermore, the exploration of such contradictions was suppressed, in part, by  Chapter 1 | Page 16 complex political conditions which made the questioning of goals (at a time when such efforts might have possibly made a difference) untenable.  This is because during the period in question (during the late 1980s), significant goal questioning may have shaken a fragile coalition of municipal governments holding the GVRD together (discussed further in Chapter Four).  It is quite possible that the coalition could not afford significant debate on growth management goals and still remain in existence.  To assess these issues and their implications for communicative regionalism, the dissertation explores the following research questions:  1. What has communicative regionalism (metropolitan-scale planning which accepts and embodies communicative planning theory) meant for plan implementation for selected suburban employment nodes in the Greater Vancouver region from 1966 to 2006? 2. Based on events and results for the three employment nodes studied (Metrotown, Big Bend and Discovery Place), what potential strengths and limitations does communicative regionalism pose for growth management outcomes?  These questions respond directly to Huxley and Yiftachel‘s plea for planning theorists to better understand planning itself by examining its role ―as a state-related strategy in the creation and regulation of space, populations, and development‖ (2000, p. 339).     Chapter 1 | Page 17    1.3 How This Dissertation is Structured  The remainder of this dissertation is structured as follows.  Chapter Two provides important ground work by elaborating on the theoretical foundation of communicative regionalism – communicative planning theory.    This background will give the reader a clearer understanding of the ―process‖ aspect of regional planning practice (i.e., how planning is to be undertaken).  Using Friedmann‘s (1987) definition of planning as the application of knowledge to action, while the ―process‖ aspect of planning is strongly related to both knowledge and action components, it has a particularly strong link to knowledge.  In essence, whatever process one chooses will depend on the theory of knowledge that one adheres to. Chapter 2 thus also looks at the foundational knowledge behind communicative approaches to planning.  Chapter 3 provides a discussion of the methodology used in the research.  Using the overarching framework of a case study analysis, the methodology draws from the theoretical literature described in Chapter 2, and is shaped in a three-part approach.  The first part or dimension is drawn directly from communicative planning theory and uses a set of six criteria against which to assess the level of communicative planning occurring within various regional planning exercises.  The second dimension recognizes that, in order to critique communicative regionalism, a methodology based solely on its foundational theory would be incomplete.  The second part thus relies on an additional theoretical lens to compensate for  Chapter 1 | Page 18 anticipated gaps.  It takes the form of four questions drawn from my reading of Actor Network Theory (ANT) and seeks to explore some of the relational events and processes between relevant factors which impacted outcomes.  The third dimension is purely empirical, linking the results of the various processes to outcomes.  Chapter 4 looks more carefully at the history of MGM and the contemporary application of both process and outcome theories for MGM in Canada and the United States.  It also includes some preliminary ideas, drawn from other examples, of what communicative regionalism looks like in an actual metropolitan setting.  These preliminary ideas include reflections on the parameters which might impact the relationships between various actors concerned with growth management.    Chapter 5 provides an overview of metropolitan planning in the Greater Vancouver region from 1966 to 2006.  This overview includes milestone events and the respective roles played by regional and more senior levels of government.  It also assesses the degree of communicative regionalism present in GVRD plans, and manifest in provincial-regional relationships.  It is followed by Chapter 6 which focuses on the inner suburb of interest to the analysis (the City of Burnaby) including its early history and a review of its major planning tools.  Chapters 7 through 9 delve into case study details, with each chapter providing a discussion of how the relevant actors worked together (and sometimes failed to) in the development of three employment nodes: Metrotown, the Big Bend Industrial Area; and Discovery Place (see Figure 1.1 earlier). Finally, Chapter 10 draws together the major findings from the case study.   Chapter 2 | Page 19 Chapter 2 – Theoretical Foundations of Communicative Regionalism  Chapter 1 stated that a practice labelled communicative regionalism has been unfolding in many North American metropolitan areas particularly since the 1980s; and it also claimed that, as a theory of how to undertake planning, the inherent weaknesses of communicative regionalism may ultimately risk yielding problematic outcomes.  This chapter provides more background on communicative regionalism through its theoretical underpinnings in communicative rationality and communicative planning theory.  It begins by further explaining the rationale for examining communicative planning theory (Section 2.1) and by placing communicative planning theory in relief against other process-based planning theories, grouped according to the prevailing type of relationship between the planner and the community being planned (Section 2.2).  It then describes the origins and some key theorists of the communicative planning school (Section 2.3) followed by the major critiques of communicative planning (Section 2.4).  Preliminary examples of communicative regionalism outside of the case study, i.e., the application of communicative planning assumptions and techniques to regional growth management, will be provided towards the end of Chapter 4.         Chapter 2 | Page 20 2.1 Why Critique Communicative Planning Theory Instead of Other Theories?  It is important to first clarify the range of possible theories with the potential to further our understanding of MGM, both broadly and as applied to a particular case study.  In discussing different approaches to regional planning 10 , Friedmann and Weaver (1979), and later Hodge and Robinson (2001), acknowledge several different types of theoretical influence on MGM and other forms of regional planning.  Distilling from the latter, and drawing also from Faludi (1973) and Yiftachel (1989), I find it useful to continue distinguishing regional planning theories between those that address how the process of planning should unfold (e.g. who should do it, using what knowledge), and those that specify what the desired end state or outcome of the exercise should be (focusing on the ideal spatial model for growth distribution in an individual region).  Of course, Allmendinger (2002) suggests that to use this dual typology is still to be largely framed by a modernist world view, which compartmentalizes knowledge and over- emphasizes its technical forms.  This is because such a typology ignores the many ways in which different theories draw upon distinct traditions of social thought, as well as the broader contexts through which they are applied.  I acknowledge Allmendinger‘s critique. Nonetheless, I argue that it remains useful for both teaching and for guiding practical  10  The terms regional planning and MGM are not completely synonymous; but since MGM is a subset of regional planning, for the purposes of this dissertation, I will use the two as equivalent, unless specified otherwise.  A region can exist at many scales, and can be defined for many purposes ranging from addressing common economic issues faced by contiguous communities to protecting water basins to managing urban growth.  In recognition of this variety, Hodge and Robinson define regional planning as meeting one of two possible needs: either ―the need to solve problems associated with a particular project or ongoing development situation… [or] the desire to attain an improved regional situation‖ (2001, p. 9).  Chapter 2 | Page 21 responses to contemporary MGM problems, by highlighting two broad currents with direct (if frequently overlapping and contradictory) influences on planning practice today.  This proposed highlighting is analogous to an x-ray which provides a closer view of a diseased tissue, to better focus temporarily on a specific aspect of a problem.  This temporary focus need not result in a compartmentalized solution if the clinician then goes on to assess the relationship between what was observed via x-ray and other dimensions of the problem within the body, as a means of ultimately developing a more holistic treatment approach. With further understanding of those process and outcome currents, I believe that we can similarly formulate a more integrated approach to metropolitan planning.  Partly informed by empirical studies outside the planning discipline, and partly given opposition to technocratic approaches, there have been shifts in both process and outcome types of planning theories over the course of the last half-century.  Process-based theorists have, however, largely omitted considerations addressed by outcome theories and empirical studies (Lauria and Whelan, 1995; Huxley and Yiftachel, 2000; also acknowledged by Healey, 1997). The following discussion briefly summarizes the main process theories impacting MGM, with outcome-based theories described in more detail in Chapter 3.  2.2 Process-Based Planning Theories (How Planning Should Unfold)  While one could categorize planning in a variety of ways 11 , a simple approach looks at three broad groupings of process-based theories, based on the relationship between planner and  11  see, for example, Friedmann‘s 1987 taxonomy of planning traditions, pp. 74-75 and of course Allmendinger‘s 2002 suggestions for developing post-positivist typologies  Chapter 2 | Page 22 community.  I label these groupings: 1) planning for the community; 2) planning with the community; and 3) planning as part of the community.  2.2.1 Planning for the Community  Theories in the first group (planning for the community) are rooted in the rational- comprehensive tradition.  Key theorists who have written on this approach include Meyers and Banfield (1955); and Kent (1964).  In this type of theory, planners as experts are asked to synthesize an appropriate range and quantity of knowledge (often primarily technical) and to then apply this synthesis to a recommended plan or approach for solving community problems.  Decisions about whether to accept the plan would then be made by politicians, rather than by individual community stakeholders or stakeholder agencies.  Much, but not all, of the knowledge embodied in this synthesis tends to presume that universalized knowledge can be applied to yield beneficial results.  It also presumes that political decisions are open to a strong influence from technical rationality.  Finally, it relies on representative, rather than direct democracy to deliver outcomes which will be in the public interest.  Despite the rational-comprehensive school‘s important public health successes, particularly in improving sanitary conditions (Peterson, 1979; Porter, 1994, especially pp. 8-20; and Boyer, 1986), critiques of the approach began to emerge in the mid to late 1960s 12 .  Some of these critiques related to the amount of synthesis created by bureaucrats before they reached the point of political decision.  These included Lindblom‘s important work, The Intelligence  12  Porter‘s and Boyer‘s work respectively describe sources of opposition to rational comprehensive planning in health reforms prior to this time.  Chapter 2 | Page 23 of Democracy (1965).  Noteworthy for its critique of single-agent synthesis, Lindblom‘s work argued (among other things) that it was impossible for one mind (or organization) to adequately synthesize all the knowledge needed to solve a particular problem because it could not fully:   Absorb all information applicable to a problem;  Distinguish between facts and values (which often overlap) and appropriately consider all values; and  Address and acknowledge failures (ibid., pp. 138-144).  According to Hoch (1994), another weakness of the rational-comprehensive model was its simplistic and instrumental consideration of power, which ignored the ways preferences can be transformed when two or more actors confront each other in the process of furthering their own goals (p. 11).  Other critiques (e.g. Davidoff, 1965; Arnstein, 1969; Friedmann, 1973, 1981) became a more explicit rallying point for those advocating greater community involvement in planning.  Yet, while this model is seldom described as desirable in contemporary planning theory literature, as of the late 1960s, the rational-comprehensive model still dominated teaching at North American University planning programs (Hightower, 1969).  Moreover, aspects of it still persist today in bureaucratic planning practice (Baum, 1996a; Seasons, 2003; Hostovsky, 2006).  A relevant example of this could be said to occur in senior government activities to control growth management, some of which have a high degree of regulation (Bollens, 1992;  Chapter 2 | Page 24 Gale, 1992; Nelson and Dawkins, 2004; see also Hodge and Robinson, 2001, Chapters Eight and Nine).   The regulation-centred approach may require all local plans, or approvals of a given size or character, be approved by that senior government before taking final effect. One possible explanation for the persistence of the rational-comprehensive model might be that it pays greater attention to –even if it may not deliver on—planning outcomes.  2.2.2 Planning With the Community  Theories in the second group, planning with the community, include the communicative planning approach analyzed in this dissertation as well as its precursors (e.g. Friedmann‘s social learning approach, 1981 and 1987; see also Friedmann and Abonyi, 1976).  While their influences and some precursor works began as early as the 1960s (e.g. Arnstein‘s ladder of participation, 1969), this group began to flourish from the late 1970s through the 20 th  c.; and it still has strong currency.  I have used the phrase planning with the community to reflect the desire for greater dialogue and knowledge exchange between planners and their non- planner clients.  I have also used this phrase to indicate the group‘s implicit view that planners remains somewhat apart from the community itself.  Hoch  refers to this group as pragmatic planning theorists, who share a common link to John Dewey‘s notion of encouraging true deliberation around the issues and proposals which a community faces (1994, p. 294).  Many, but not all of the theorists in this camp are from the Communicative school.  (Exceptions include Schon, 1983; and Friedmann, 1973; 1978; 1981; 1987; and 1993, who take a social learning approach influenced by Dewey, but do not directly share the Habermasian assumptions of the Communicative school).  As a  Chapter 2 | Page 25 deliberation-based set of theories, particular emphasis is placed on the value of information exchange and its role in changing perceptions (Hoch, 1994; Innes, 1998; Forester, 1989 and 2001).  This information emphasis will be discussed in greater detail in Section 2.3.  2.2.3 Planning as Part of the Community  The third approach, planning as part of the community, occurs where planners do not see themselves as separate from the community, but in fact as part of it.  Planners who are part of the community (in the sense I use here) can belong in both literal and metaphorical ways.  In the broader sense, planners who are part of the community can be said to ―belong‖ if they do not see themselves as neutral / distant actors, but as engaged and involved in a human way. Thus, even if s/he has no ―official‖ status in that community, a planner who demonstrates this third type of relationship recognizes her or his own subjectivity, personal characteristics, and affiliations which might affect the planning process, and tries to deal with them in a constructive way.  He or she is also not afraid to be political when needed.  This third type of planning may ultimately provide a way forward in bridging the gap between process and outcome needs in the metropolitan planning process –a notion which could be realized through the recommendations proposed in Chapter Ten.  Process-based theories in this third group thus share an acknowledgement of the planner‘s role as an individual social actor; however, there is considerable variety in terms of the prescriptions for how that role should unfold.  Foucauldian theories of planning (Flyvbjerg, 1998) advocate that the planners respond strategically to power in order to achieve their goals; but as Alexander (2001) observes, such theories provide little direction about what  Chapter 2 | Page 26 those goals should be (p. 313).  Sandercock‘s (2003) post-modern planning theory advocates that planners hold transformative values (i.e., that they seek social and economic justice), and that they develop six literacies (pp. 76-80), drawing on particular tools for acting on specific situations (p. 159).  Baum (1983, 1997) has focused on the constructive aspects of conflict (which may be somewhat compatible with what is termed agonistic dialogue and planning by Brand and Gaffikin, 2007).  Baum (1987, 1997) recognizes the discomfort conflict creates, while also appreciating conflict‘s potential for defining and sustaining communities in ways that ultimately help the latter survive together.   Hoch  hints that planners in the third group must constantly decide in each new circumstance which role they will play, ―navigat[ing] between the autonomy of expertise and their responsibility to others‖ (1994, p. 296), taking what I would label a ―menu-based‖ approach, where one chooses modes of acting depending on their suitability to a given context.  2.2.4 Relevance to MGM Outcomes  All three groups of process-based theory have potential relevance for understanding MGM outcomes.  Yet, as Soja (1996), Allmendinger (2002), and Pallagst (2006) infer, planning theory literature tends to focus on its own narrow cluster, rather than elaborating on complementarities between two or more groups of them.  This occurs where an author either critiques a particular body of theory or supports it through case studies.  Conversely, as Friedmann (1995) and Alexander (2001) observe, there is both overlap and complementarity between the groups.  In particular, Alexander‘s notion of interdependence, Hoch‘s selective approach, and Sandercock‘s call for a ―usefully promiscuous approach to planning theory‖,  Chapter 2 | Page 27 (2004, p. 27) 13  help clarify  how practicing planners might effectively choose and adapt useful aspects of these different theoretical groups –in ways which develop further socially beneficial outcomes.  So if these theories are not isolated from each other, why focus on communicative planning among all the other process theories?  Simply put: because theorists and practitioners alike have highlighted communicative planning as the dominant process paradigm for the 1980s and 1990s (Innes, 1992; Fischler, 2000; Healey, 2003; Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones, 2002; Murray, 2006).  Moreover, communicative planning models continue to receive important scholarly attention.  And, as the dominant process paradigm, communicative planning has been frequently applied in the real world –often in less than ideal ways.  While theory often influences practice indirectly, particularly in the process stream, communicative planning theory has actually become quite popular in practice.  Murray (2006) describes three clusters of reasons for this popularity, summarized from other research.  These include:   philosophical rationales (in terms of enhancing democracy and fairness);  practical rationales, which include an improved ability to handle complex information and perspectives on planning matters, as well as greater (apparent) willingness of participants in communicative planning processes to accept and implement final plan recommendations; and  13  Also anticipated by Allmendinger, 1998  Chapter 2 | Page 28  ideological rationales, where communicative approaches to governance can facilitate government down-sizing, by reducing bureaucratic involvement and costs (on this third rationale see especially Bishop and Davis, 2001; also Dredge, 2006).  Researchers have further established a clear link between the communicative planning model, MGM processes, and evolving regulatory frameworks.  For example, Bollens (1992) observed a convergence focused around collaborative and cooperative approaches in state-led approaches to influencing MGM.  Unfortunately, in many instances this has resulted in loose voluntary arrangements for MGM which over-emphasize the communicative planning model (stressing that growth would not be managed without consensus) in large part due to insufficient political will to undertake deeper institutional and/or legislative reform (see, for example, Rothblatt, 1994; also Hodge and Robinson, 2001).  And, in terms of the outcomes needed to ensure sustainability, this expedient approach may simply not be enough.  A somewhat novel take on this issue comes from Margerum‘s (2002) analysis of the application of communicative planning to a voluntary growth management process in Queensland, Australia.  The Queensland case is of particular interest because, while the initial process was voluntary, its outcomes included more structured form of implementation than that achieved in many American voluntary models.  This has suggested some important new parameters for communicative regionalism, and has influenced my development of analytical criteria (for the latter, see Chapter 3).  Communicative planning, and its unfolding through communicative regionalism, is also of interest because of the gap between its anchoring values and actual application in planning  Chapter 2 | Page 29 situations.  Even advocates of communicative planning and its variations have expressed concern with its improper use, particularly when it takes the form of window dressing for planning exercises whose dialogue components are mainly tokenistic (Healey, 2003).  This contention is reconfirmed by my own professional planning experience of fifteen years at both local and senior government levels, where I have seen many planners conflicted between desires to realize good planning outcomes through comprehensive stakeholder dialogue (as advocated in the communicative planning model) and the need to ―get things done‖ in a politically expedient manner (see also McGuirk‘s 2001 case study).  2.3 Origins and Key Theorists of Communicative Planning  Depending on which communicative planning theorist one examines, one sees a range of early influences from other disciplines.  The common thread is the critical theory and communicative rationality of Jurgen Habermas.  Rationality, or knowledge, is a critical anchor for planning, in keeping with Friedmann‘s (1987) definition of planning as the application of knowledge to action.  Habermas made an important contribution to knowledge by distinguishing between what he called instrument rationality and communicative rationality, with the latter recognizing more experiential forms of knowledge and allowing them to come to light, along with values, through dialogue between individuals and groups (Habermas, 1984; Healey, 1997).  In this vein, Habermas claimed that knowledge is socially constructed by individuals and groups holding diverse perspectives, rather than absolute.  Habermas‘s project in advancing communicative rationality over the instrumental has been a democratic one, anchored in a desire for egalitarian public debate.  It responds to his belief  Chapter 2 | Page 30 that scientific and technical knowledge have been misused in ways that privilege the interests of the powerful, in large part because such knowledge is difficult for the non-specialist to debate.  Communicative rationality has thus sought to reduce the distortions caused by power and an overemphasis on instrumental knowledge, by allowing for a new form of truth to consensually emerge through dialogue.  To reduce these distortions, individual participants undertaking Habermasian dialogue must also take communicative action, by constantly reflecting on their own communication patterns as well as those of others (Huxley, 2000, p. 370).  Essentially, communicative action (rather than instrumental action which simply seeks to achieve a tangible goal for the sake of goal achievement) must be the focus of effort (see also p. 56 for further discussion of contrast between the two types of action).  And, for truth to prevail in this model, consensus must be the end goal.  Of course, this stress on consensus has both informed, and created much reaction to, communicative planning theory.  Interestingly, there has even been some debate about the extent to which Habermas himself believed in the universal feasibility of consensus.  For example, Hillier‘s (2003) reading of Habermas suggests acknowledgement that consensus could fail, even where mutual understanding existed, where:  1. A group could not agree on the terms used to define itself (and what it meant to be part of the group) or 2. Interests were opposed and non-generalizable, requiring negotiations and tradeoffs (rather than true consensus) to resolve (p. 40).   Chapter 2 | Page 31 One could argue that most difficult planning problems are, at heart, non-generalizable and will thus always require tradeoffs.  This question of consensus will be revisited shortly under Section 2.4 – Critiques.  Within the group of communicative planning theorists, the first to concretely incorporate Habermas‘s ideas for communicative rationality was American scholar John Forester (1980, 1985, 1989, and 2001).  In addition to communicative rationality, Forester‘s work was influenced by John Dewey‘s ideas on deliberation –a link he shared with Hoch (1994), who was another communicative theorist, and with Friedmann (specifically acknowledged in 1973, 1987,) as well as Argyris and Schon (1974); and Schon (1983).  Friedmann, Argyris and Schon were arguably not in the communicative camp despite a common belief in the value of deliberation.  Dewey‘s contribution to planning theory included the notion that people learn while doing, and the importance of assessing ideas and techniques on the basis of their outcomes, rather than just their intentions (Sandercock, 2003, p. 62).  Forester‘s work (e.g. 1985, 1989, 2001) did not simply take Habermasian ideas about dialogue and fuse them onto existing planning models; rather, it thoughtfully translated the notion of ideal dialogue into the less than perfect setting of real world deliberation over planning questions.  In this vein, Forester recognized that powerful interests would consistently create situations where misinformation strongly shaped public dialogue.  At the same time, he saw that planners were not passive participants in this process.  They were power holders in their own right, with the ability to exercise this power (and to correct misinformation where feasible and necessary) by attention-shaping (1980).  He later  Chapter 2 | Page 32 elaborated that this entailed three distinct processes: some types of decision-making; agenda- setting; and the shaping of felt needs (1989).  In fact, Forester underscored how much of planners‘ power (in the sense of influencing outcomes) centres on their significant control over the commodity of information.  He also believed that their power would inspire the expectations or judgements about that information because of their formal status as professionals and, frequently, representatives of the state (1980).  This appreciation for planners‘ power was not just an analytical judgement, but a normative call for planners to use their power for progressive, transformative ends –to enhance social justice in small and subtle ways.  In order to do so, Forester believed that planners should actively consider the moral, ethical and political issues shaping their roles, and the exercise of those roles (1980, 1989, and 2001).  To facilitate this exploration, Forester‘s more recent book, The Deliberative Practitioner (2001) has drawn from extensive planner interviews, and has strategically clustered excerpts from those interviews into a loose storyline that highlights particular questions and themes.  This approach has sought to make a practical link between abstract questions and the processing of real world events by individual planners.  This technique was innovative, and did help to ground theoretical notions about planners and their participation in public deliberation.  Yet, without the context of specific places and other stakeholders, this grounding remained somewhat thin.  (Key aspects of Forester‘s work, as compared with other communicative theorists of relevance to communicative regionalism, are summarized later in Table 2.1.)   Chapter 2 | Page 33 Another major theorist in the communicative camp includes Patsy Healey, a British scholar who had worked for many years as a practicing planner before turning to academic life.  As with Forester, Healey helped to thoughtfully translate Habermasian notions of communicative rationality into planning settings; and she drew from Habermas the notion of mutual culture building of diverse actors (Healy, 1997), which she would develop further in later works (Coaffee and Healey, 2003).  For Healey, Habermas‘s work14 clearly reunited both facts and values in public discussions (she called this merged form of knowledge practical reasoning).  But Healey was also influenced by the work of sociologist Anthony Giddens.  She distinguished her work (from that of others who had not incorporated Giddens‘s ideas) by referring to her own as collaborative planning.  Notable influences from Giddens‘s work on collaborative planning theory were his:   Appreciation of how existing social context with its connections and constraints can both limit and shape our actions and perceptions; and  Recognition of power not just as an oppressive force needing to be countered, but as a potentially positive force which could also help realize goals and dreams (Giddens, 1984).  Related to the potentially positive view of power, Giddens also observed that power is channelled through allocative resources (e.g. materials, money, and infrastructure) and authoritative resources (derived from the status, role, knowledge, and/or authority held by an individual or agency) (ibid.).   14  She also acknowledges Forester‘s work as an influence (1992, 1997).  Chapter 2 | Page 34 Healey elaborated on Giddens‘s work by identifying specific relationship systems through which mutual understanding (and mutual capacity for structural change) might be enhanced. Like Forester, and Habermas himself, Healey has used her work to emphasize the use of deliberation for progressive ends.  One of Healey‘s important contributions in this regard was to celebrate the benefit of, and power inherent in, the public realm.  For, while acquainted with the limits to modernist (or universalistic) conceptions of knowledge, Healey still saw value in some sort of shared understanding and agreement between society‘s diverse groups. And it was the latter understanding and agreement which was to bolster a shared public realm.  Of particular relevance to my interest in communicative regionalism, Healey also explored ways of translating these theoretical concepts into new approaches to governance.  In this regard, her work in the late 1990s and early 21 st  c. (both alone and with collaborators) is of interest.  Healey‘s key ideas in this regard have included:   The value of strategies as simplified reference points for moving forward with action, reflecting earlier shared agreements between stakeholders about desired short, medium and long term ends and the broad approach for achieving goals and/ or solving problems (1997);  The real possibility that stakeholders‘ connections to those strategies will shift and weaken over time –a notion she labels interpretive drift (1997); and  The need for any institutional change (which might be needed to achieve such strategies, or to respond to other externally imposed changes) to progress through  Chapter 2 | Page 35 three distinct phases.  The first is an initial phase of episodic and individual manifestations of a desired new way of working and acting; the second is a deeper acceptance of that change, in which networks and coalitions (either within an organization or among a group of organizations) make significant changes to standard practices and routines; and the third is a phase of maturity in which the entire culture of an organization or network has accepted and completely internalized the new way of being (Coaffee and Healey, 2003).  These notions are particularly relevant to my analysis, because they point towards variables to which communicative regionalism –and post-communicative regionalism—must pay further attention.  They will be considered further throughout the regional case study and its sub cases (see Table 2.1 for a comparative summary with other theorists).  A third communicative theorist worth singling out is Judith Innes, partly because her work has made an even more direct link between theory and practice than that of Forester and Healey, and partly because her work was cited as an overt influence on senior government legislation from my case study in the mid-1990s.  In earlier versions of Innes‘s work, she clearly affiliated her own approach to theory and practice with a Habermasian influence, labelling it communicative planning (1992 and 1998; also Innes and Booher, 1999).  In later works, however, she has distinguished between the specific approach of consensus planning and communicative planning, with the former intended to refer to a more specific subset of processes, and the latter a broader and more variable approach (Innes and Booher, 1999). She has also been more inclined in recent years to call her approach collaborative.  Perhaps  Chapter 2 | Page 36 in doing so she is clarifying or strengthening an affinity with Healey‘s work; however, this is not explicit and has not been confirmed.  Innes‘s work has drawn substantially on case study analyses of various planning processes –most notably, but not exclusively, occurring in California.  In many of these processes, Innes has participated as a facilitator.  Her expression of communicative planning theory is thus grounded in her own hands-on experience, bringing a fresh perspective to theoretical discussions.  Moreover, because it is situated in a specific political and institutional context, she avoids a critique launched at Forester‘s work and Healey‘s 1997 work –at least somewhat.  Finally, Innes‘s relatively high-profile, hands-on approach has likely given her some credibility among practitioners, who have been exposed to her work largel