UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Identifying a more appropriate role for the Canadian planning profession Witty, David Roy 1998

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1998-346455.pdf [ 17.08MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099360.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099360-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099360-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099360-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099360-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099360-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099360-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099360-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099360.ris

Full Text

IDENTIFYING A M O R E APPROPRIATE R O L E F O R T H E CANADIAN PLANNING PROFESSION  by DAVID R O Y W I T T Y FCIP B A (Hons), University of Waterloo 1969 M A , University of Waterloo 1973 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E REQUIREMENTS  FOR THEDEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning W e accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  UNIVERSITY JF BRITISH C O L U M B I A September 1998  © DAVID ROY WITTY FCIP  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives.  It is  understood that copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  Abstract Canadian planners face an uncertain future. The communities which planners serve are experiencing significant change and seeking answers to the environmental, economic, and social factors affecting them Planners have been disparaged publicly and in writing by prominent popular writers, criticized by planning theorists, reproached by politicians and the public, and challenged from within and outside the profession to explore new ways of addressing the issues facing society. While planners have been caught up in those debates and issues, no one has asked planners what they think about the future of their profession. This study examines the state of Canadian planning^ asks practitioners what they think about their profession, and identifies the factors which affect the work of planners. The study is based upon a review of planning literature and a survey of Canadian planners. The literature review examines others' -mainly planning theorists'- primary research to explore the historic relationship between planners and city building and the influences of that relationship upon modem planning thought and practice. The study also reviews the evolution of modem planning theory and modern planning practice. The examination of the history and theory of planning provides a context for the exploration of practitioners' views of the nature and status of planning in Canada. The focus of the study is an analysis of the views of Canadian practitioners on the current state of planning. Five hundred and two questionnaires were sent to a random sample of members of the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP), representing 14% of the Provisional and Full members. One hundred and tiiirty three or 27% of the sample responded. The results provide a detailed understanding of what Canadian planners identify as the issues facing Canadian planning practice. The study confirms that a majority of Canadian planners believe that planning practice is facing or is in a state of crisis. They suggest that the crisis is caused by a number of factors such as the political nature of planning decision-making, lack of public understanding of planning, and lack of understanding of planning by politicians. Many planners feel that planning is compromised by the politics of place and that, more and more, planning is facing conflicts of competing interests. In the face of those pressures, planners believe that most planners have become agents of order rather than agents of change. They suggest that the future of planning rests in identifying appropriate new concepts of planning action. A large number also believe that there is a weak linkage between the theory and practice of planning which threatens the well being of planning practice. Building upon the findings of the survey and Len Gertler's 1994 challenge to the Canadian Institute of Planners to identify a "more appropriate development model," the study suggests that a "new development model" could reinvigorate Canadian planning and build effective linkages between theory and practice. The study suggests the evolving concepts of healthy communities and sustainable development could provide a framework for such a model which could have a social reform and interventionist approach to community-based action. The dissertation offers suggestions on the potential form of the model and the role that the Canadian Institute of Planners could play in articulating it. ii  Table of Contents Abstract List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgements  .. ii ..vi ..vii viii  1. Introduction  1.1 Background 1.3 Organisation o f Dissertation 1.4 Defining Terminology 1.4.1 Professional Planning 1.4.2 Community 1.4.3 Dealing with the natural world 1.5 Summary  2. Problem Statement  2.1 Research objectives 2.2 Research questions 2.3 Methodology 2.3.1 Questionnaire 2.4 Summary  3. Introduction to the Challenges Facing the Planning Profession  3.1 Historical factors affecting planning practice 3.1.1 Early history of the city 3.1.2 Nineteenth century city planning 3.1.3 The urban reform period o f city planning 3.1.4 Planning after Thomas Adams 3.1.5 Summary 3.2 The effects o f the politics of place upon planners 3.3 The search for a theoretical base 3.3.1 Search for credibility 3.3.2 Split between practice and academia 3.4 Planning's traditions and their effect upon practice 3.4.1 Planning models 3.4.2. Social learning 3.5 Planning Professionalism 3.5.1 Ethics 3.5.2 Code o f conduct 3.5.3 The public interest 3.6 Conclusion  1  Table of Contents (continued...)  4. The State of Current Canadian  Planning Practice  100  4.1 In search of identity 102 4.2 What Canadian professional planners think 104 4.2.1 Some background about the respondents 105 4.2.2 What do the respondents do as planners? 107 4.2.3 Education 109 4.3 The relevance of the profession 116 4.3.1 What Canadian planners think 116 4.3.2 Comparison o f planners within the profession 135 4.3.3 What selected individuals think 148 4.4 Summary 168 4.5 Comparison with other findings 168 4.5.1 Findings from eastern Canada 168 4.5.2 Lessons from the United States 170 4.6 Examination of previous surveys of CIP members 170 4.6.1 Page and Lang Report: Environmental Planning in Canada 171 4.6.2 Prospects for Planning: CIP Task Force on the Future of the Planning Profession (1982) 174 4.7 Determining the relevance of CIP 177 4.7.1 Page and Lang: Environmental Planning in Canada 178 4.7.2 Task Force on the Future of the Planning Profession 178 4.7.3 Strategic Plan 180 4.7.4 Recent experience 180 4.8 The world that planners face or why the profession needs to identify appropriate new concepts of planning action 190  5. Potential New Dimensions of Planning  Practice  195  5.1 Paradigms 195 5.2 Framing Appropriate N e w Concepts of Planning Action 197 5.2.1 Potential key ingredients 200 5.2.2 Potential to modify the practice of planning 203 5.2.3 Identification of a process for model construction 207 5.2.4 Considering the public health model 211 5.2.5 Potential foundation for a new development model: Healthy Sustainable Communities 213 5.2.6 Implications for planning thought and practice 224 5.3 Proposed approach 226 5.3.1 Incorporating 'old ground' into a new development model 230 5.3.2 Communication as the tool 233 5.4 Defining a potential model 234 5.4.1 Healthy sustainable community action 234 5.4.2 Putting the model into action 237 iv  Table of Contents (continued...) 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8  5.4.3 Additional factors 241 Building linkages between practice and academia 245 Modifying how planners do business 246 What does this mean for the profession? 247 5.7.1 Praxis 247 What role for CIP? 249 5.8.1 Internally generated initiatives 250 5.8.2 A possible role for CIP in facilitating the review and expansion of a new development model 251  6. Conclusion  254  Bibliography  257  Appendix 1: Questionnaire  265  Appendix 2: Examining the influences upon the dimensions of community planning 282  List of Tables Table Table Table Table Table Table Table  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  What planners do as planners Processes and tools used by planners Primary discipline of most recent degree Major specialization Areas that made training relevant Areas that made training somewhat or not very relevant A selected comparison of the views o f local government planners and consulting planners  108 108 Ill Ill 114 115 137  vi  List of Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure  1 2 3 4 5  Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8  Principle Dimensions of Planning The Planning Cycle Causes for the Crisis in Canadian Planning.... Achieving Healthy cities Potential Influences upon the Canadian Approach to Sustainable Community Action The Shift from Traditional to Ecosystem Based Decision Making Healthy Sustainable Community Action Planning as Intervention  86 101 118 223 225 228 229 244  vn  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the past thirty years, I have meandered through the world of Canadian planning, working on a variety of projects, with a variety of communities, people, and issues. M y view of that world has been affected inextricably by several life-events and people who have shaped my life. Foremost amongst these has been my partner in life, Marg. She has provided the anchor in the storm of life. To her I dedicate this work. M y touchstone to the ethics and professionalism of planning has been Len Gertler and Bob Dorney whose work and teaching framed my early days. Garry Efilderman, my professional partner for many years and a truly accomplished landscape architect, set a standard and enthusiasm for our work that ingrained my career. I owe much to the people of Cross Lake, Whitedog, and Lucky Man, who, over the course of fifteen years, taught me how to listen, be humble and be thankful. Peter Boothroyd provided the essential support, guidance and advice on this dissertation to keep me going when other commitments drew me away. Thank you Peter. Lastly, I thank all those Canadian planners who took the time to participate and share their views and who, despite the day-to-day pressures of their work, continue to dedicate themselves to improving the quality of life of their conmiunities.  viii  1. Introduction The planning profession faces an uncertain future. The future of planning is clouded because of externally and internally generated forces at work' in communities. These forces influence the work of planners and the expectations politicians and the public have of planners. As the nature and complexity of decision making that affects the social, economic, ecological and physical well-being of communities increases so does the potential for confusion about the roles for planners. Although there has been a significant amount of research into the causes of the crises facing communities and a large amount of writing about the role that planners play in events affecting communities, there has been no recent documented research on what practising planners think of their profession, what they believe is and could be the profession's place within the processes affecting communities and what they see as a possible future role for the profession.  In varying roles and capacities, planners have worked in communities to help shape social, economic and physical environments. Now, as communities continue to face changes to their economic, social, ecological and physical composition, planners are often caught in the midst of debates about equity, allocation of benefits and costs, and community interests. The changes in communities has implications for the well-being of the planning profession and the role of planners. Growing crises in Canadian communities call out for a concerted effort by Canadian planning theorists, practitioners and the professional body, the Canadian Institute of Planners which represents them, to become a more coherent force addressing the numerous issues facing communities. This study explores this terrain by examining three questions facing the planning profession: (1) what do planners think of their profession and their role in it; (2) to what extent and in what ways do planners desire to change their profession to respond to the challenges facing the profession and communities within which they work; and (3) what are the possibilities for doing so? Following a review of what planners think, a potential new development model is examined to address what planners think needs to happen to reinvigorate the profession.  1  During the past twenty eight years, twenty two years as a planning consultant and six years as a public servant, I have developed an interest in the nature of the planning profession and the issues surrounding its future role. I have worked across much of Canada as a professional planner in large and small communities set in urban, regional and resource planning contexts. I have also taught planning at three Canadian Universities. During much of that time, I have been closely involved in the Canadian Institute of Planners, at the local affiliate level in Manitoba and British Columbia, at the national level on the Institute's National Council and Executive, as President of the Institute and as a representative of the Institute as the Chair of the Canadian Healthy Communities Project. That experience has provided me with first hand evidence of the state of planning in Canada, the role of the Canadian Institute of Planners, and the need to reflect upon the profession's well being and pertinence. Much of this experience has led me to question the role of the profession and the relationship of practice to theory, and to conclude that Canadian planning requires re-evaluation to determine its appropriateness and potential to address the issues facing communities. A review of planning literature - as described in Chapter 3- suggests that Canadian planning has endured a fractious and disputed history. It is a history strewn with the ideals of the theories of planning scattered amidst the products of practice. Throughout the history of city building, planners have been influenced by a number of factors, including the politics and economics of place. The history of planning has affected present planning practice. This study reviews the linkage between the history of planning and the theory and practice of planning to determine the context of planning practice as it is influenced by its history and theory. Through that analysis it is possible to identify a frame of reference from which several key questions can identified. To better understand modern planning practice, those questions were put to practitioners in a questionnaire sent to a random sample of members of the Canadian Institute of Planners. The following section identifies some of the broader factors affecting the role of planners and sets the stage for a more detailed discussion of the profession.  1.1 Background By the turn of the century nearly one half of the world's population will live in urban centres (The World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Across the globe, 2  urbanisation is continuing unabated (UN Centre for Human Settlements, 1992). Rural and resource lands are increasingly stressed through over exploitation, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. Professional planners will need to consider their role in helping to monitor, manage and direct changes that have occurred and will continue to occur as cities grow and resource exploitation continues. Planners "must reconcile not two, but at least three conflicting interests: to 'grow' the economy, distribute this growth fairly, and in the process not degrade the ecosystem" (Campbell 1996: 297). To do so, they will need to have a good understanding of who they are, what they can offer and how they can assist within the reality of their profession. No longer do the communities of residence display the coherent building blocks of values and beliefs that formed the basis for distinguishable, distinct, and consistent broader regional and ultimately state cultures. Instead, the world is running frantically in two directions at once. First, globally there is an attempt to culture the world with the values of Western individualism, capitalism and consumption. At the same time, however, at the local community level, where that acculturation is having direct impact, there is a diversification of values and beliefs which respond to the imposition of those external concepts. As community cohesiveness has deteriorated, so too has the ability of communities to respond to those external influences. As a result, communities, their residents and the state are faced with unending challenges to traditional methods, values, beliefs, and lifestyles (Kennedy 1993). It is a potentially never ending cycle of cultural decay, and perhaps dysfunction.  The forces promoting massive disruptive change have created communities in crisis (and possibly a crisis in the professions, including the planning profession). The former conclusion has been reflected in the popular press (Kennedy 1993, Saul 1993), alternative literature (Nozick 1992), and academic literature (Carman 1990, Sturm 1988). Much has been written over the past twenty years about the growing chaos that faces communities across the globe (Banfield 1968, Bookchin 1987, Boyer 1983, Catton 1980, Castells 1978, Doxiadis 1972, Friedland 1982, Yates 1977). Those challenges to communities are also evidenced within Canada (Sewell 1993). Others have pointed to potential solutions to the chaos that swirls in and at the edges of cities (Jacobs 1961 and 1984, Roseland 1992). Yet, political attention is directed at broader agenda items, 3  including national debt, international financial issues, international trade, international political instability, and global environmental concerns. The growing crisis in communities is frequently ignored by senior governments and left to local government for its consideration. Such consideration is often fragmented and disjointed (Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. 1992). Planners work in that environment of crisis, particularly in the local community. They are often asked to respond to external forces, harnessing them where possible in positive ways. This role places planners frequently in the middle of difficult debates over which communities may have little control. Those issues may affect detrimentally the planning profession. To date, no one has examined what planners, themselves, think of those issues as they affect the profession. Some writers, such as Alastair Maclntyre (1984) and Charles Taylor (1991), point to modernity as the cause for the broad crisis in society. Modernity represents a general loss of the meaning of community in favour of the rise of individualism (Maclntyre 1984 and Taylor 1991)* . Maclntyre and Taylor have identified several key issues arising from this new found focus upon the individual. Those issues include: the development of the individual as "an autonomous moral agent" (Maclntyre 1984: 68); the "primacy of instrumental reason" (Taylor 1991: 5); the loss of meaning or "the fading of moral horizons" (Taylor: 10). Those issues have significant consequences for communities and the professions, such as planning. For instance, these 'new' moral developments affect community members, their interactions, and the manner in which professionals such as planners deal with them. For each of us is taught to see himself or herself as an autonomous moral agent; but each of us also becomes engaged by modes of practice, aesthetic or bureaucratic, which involve us in manipulative relationships with others. Seeking to protect the autonomy that we have learned to prize, we aspire ourselves not to be manipulated by others; seeking to incarnate our own principles and stand-point in the world of practice, we find no way open to us to do so except by directing towards others those manipulative modes of relationship which each of us aspires to resist in our own case. The incoherence of our attitudes and our experience arises from the incoherent conceptual scheme which we have inherited (Maclntyre: 68).  * The loss of a social connectedness with nature has also been viewed by others as a crisis of modernity and reflection of "Western society (becoming) a de-animating culture." (Rogers 1994: 12).  4  That view has implications for professionals, such as planners, who deal with communities. Taylor believes that, while "individualism also names what many people consider the finest achievement of modern civilization. . . . Modern freedom was won by our breaking loose from older moral horizons. . . . Modern freedom came about by discrediting of such orders. . . . But at the same time as they restricted us, these orders gave meaning to the world and to the activities of social life" (Taylor: 3). As a result, "people no longer have a sense of a higher purpose. . . . People lost the broader vision because they focused on their individual lives" and have become "less concerned with others and society" (Taylor: 4). The views of Maclntyre and Taylor suggest, that the challenges to community well-being run to the core of society's values. Any attempt at reconnecting planning to community will face this broader challenge facing society. Since planners' primary work focuses upon community, much of what Taylor has to say has direct implications for planners and could very well influence how planners respond to the changes impacting communities. John Ralston Saul is another popular writer who has received considerable currency. Saul raises issues related to professionalism. In Voltaire's Bastards, Saul (1993) has written a widely read analysis of the role and influence of reason in Western civilisation upon society, its structures and universal understanding. Our reality is dominated by elites who have spent much of the last two centuries . . . organizing society around answers and around structures designed to produce answers. These structures have fed upon expertise and that expertise upon complexity. . . . The possession, use and control of knowledge have become their central theme - the theme song of their expertise. However, their power depends not on the effect with which they use that knowledge but on the effectiveness with which they control its use. . . . The reality is that the division of knowledge into feudal fiefdoms of expertise has made general understanding and coordinated action not simply impossible but despised and distrusted . . . so that the subsequent pinning down and splitting up of language into feudal states has now made it impossible for the citizen to participate seriously in society" (Saul: 8). How have planners been affected by that history? What do planners think about their area of expertise?  Since planners, as much as any professionals,  depend upon acceptance  of  comprehensive processes for their existence and recognition, any attempt to examine planning practice and invigorate professional bodies, will need to reflect upon Saul's conclusions. 5  Notwithstanding the concerns raised by Saul, planners are in a unique position to address broader societal needs as identified by Taylor and, in the face of the challenges facing society, to help move public focus back to a sense of communitas and decision processes that address the issues facing society; in the words of Gertler*, "we may wish to fulfill our calling as planners by joining in the search for, i f not devising and working with, a more appropriate development model" (Gertler 1994). Do planners think a more appropriate concept of planning action is necessary for them to do their work? Perhaps in response to the recognition that society is suffering at the hands of a focus upon individualism and associated dominance of technology, some recent limited attention has been centred upon new initiatives that emphasise an increased attention upon community. One such movement, the healthy community movement, has begun to take shape as an alternative to current efforts at revitalising communities. That movement is poorly understood by planners and has received very little support from planners and politicians (Witty 1991). Other initiatives, such as sustainable communities and safe cities, are increasingly receiving broad political recognition. To what extent do those initiatives address the crisis in our communities? What do practitioners think of healthy communities and sustainable development? Do planners see a role for themselves and their professional body, the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) in these initiatives? Or, has the agenda moved beyond the relevance of the planning profession? What is the role of planners and CIP in that debate?  In an attempt to deal with emerging pressures, communities and local governments have begun to explore new options, such as healthy communities, that lie traditionally outside the practice of planning. Those options include increased focus upon processes and methods that have little to do with land use and much more to do with holistic considerations of place, including ecological, social, economic, and physical factors on the one hand and international market development on the other. As well, citizens are seeking a greater control over decisions which Len Gertler is a Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Planners, distinguished planning teacher, writer and practitioner, and former Chair of the University of Waterloo School of Planning.  6  affect directly their lifestyle, neighbourhoods, and general well-being. Concomitantly, external pressures are forcing Canadian communities to reconsider their role within the nation state and the degree to which they can balance external pressures and needs with internally driven needs. Since community planners have traditionally shaped community form, they are affected by the influences of increased movement to cities, resource allocation conflict, and apparent requirement of cities and communities to adapt to global economic trends on the one hand, and the desire by community groups to exert control over events affecting quality of everyday life on the other hand. But, the dichotomy between complicated externalities of seemingly uncontrollable global market forces and community-based initiatives and expectations often appear to lie outside of traditional planning practice processes. Both forces pose a threat to the community planning profession and will require significant alterations to practice i f community planners are to address those issues and remain relevant in a time of increasing change.  This environment within which planners find themselves has changed dramatically over the past three decades. John Friedmann (1992: 2), a highly respected planning theoretician, believes that this "context of planning" had been affected by "four world-historical conditions:. . . collapse of the time-space continuum into an ever present Now; the incipient breakdown of political community; the loss of political control over territorial jurisdictions; and the epistemological crisis engendered by the loss of faith in nomothetic science, that is, science based on natural and social laws." The four "world historical-conditions" are: the spread of a global economic system, unstable world political economy, loss of political control over territorial jurisdictions, and the epistemological crisis. Planners work in the political world as resource allocation specialists (Baum 1980). They are affected by political conditions. Planning theorists have explored frequently the political environment of planning (Baum, Beauregard 1991, Forester 1980, 1989, Grant 1994, Hoch 1992, Howe 1994). Hoch points out, Power proves a formidable obstacle to the promise of achieving public good through the conduct of professional planning. Postmodern planning critics, however, go much further and claim that planning actually contributes to the paradox in its very efforts to resolve it power proves a formidable obstacle to the promise of achieving public good through the 7  conduct of professional planning. . . . The postmodern critique leaves no place for planning to hide from its attachment to power. (1992: 207). While planning has been examined from an academic perspective, few have considered what planners themselves -as key players in all of this- think about power and its affect upon their work. If planning is influenced by power, then the practitioners who are on the front lines of that influence need to be considered to determine their views of power and its effects upon practice. It is interesting to note that many, who claim that planning is irrelevant because, amongst other things, it is too rational and imposes decisions on others -"the entire planning enterprise appears downright perverse" (Hoch 1992: 207)-, call for the practice of planning to change without ever asking the practitioners what they think! That is like a doctor of medicine claiming that their patients health problems are related to lifestyle and that the patients need to change their lifestyle without asking the patient whether it is within their means to change their lifestyle. It is also like planners creating a community plan without talking to affected residents. Planners have depended upon stability of economic growth and local government revenues (Hoch 1985). Planners have required traditionally clear territorial definition of interests to apply rational positivism in decision making and associated resource allocation. Now, in just the past few decades, planners have been faced with significant questions about the basis of their practice. As government expenditures decline, economies restructure, ecological problems increase, and local politics intensify, planners are increasingly faced with questions about their role. Associated with those questions is the issue of defining more appropriate mechanisms to address the myriad of problems facing communities. Community planning, like many other professions*, is threatened by those issues and the events that Friedmann (1992) and others have identified. In addition, planners are not a homogeneous group. They may be consultants, or work for local or regional governments. Their interests and concerns may vary, one group from the other; and of course in terms of their individual values and belief systems.  * The profession of landscape architecture is also seen to be a serious state In the fall 1997 and spring 1998 editions of Landscape Architecture, the magazine of the American Association of Landscape Architects, identified a number of issues facing the profession of landscape architecture. 8  The complexity of issues, diversity of interests and segmentation of authority, combined with the politics and economics of place, and politics of power and process associated with formal and informal political structure, appears to establish the agenda which drives most public and private community planning organisations. In response, community planners have had to develop a number of survival skills that have permitted coping in this challenging environment. Those skills may not always be appropriate for the issues facing communities. Filion (1997: 14) has concluded that municipal governments restrict the ability of planners to respond to issues in creative ways. He feels there is an "observed concentration of planning's visioning and creative activity outside municipal planning departments." Thus, the environment  of planning  appears to  limit planners' response. Few have studied what practising planners think about the environment within which they find themselves. While Canada is often viewed as a country of plenty and a vast uninhabited landscape, it has one of the most highly urbanised populations in the world (Statistics Canada 1991). Canada is not immune to the growing ecological, economic, and social issues associated with other urbanised countries. But, senior governments have devoted little attention to these issues of urbanisation  (Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront 1992). Because  Canadian municipal government (as the creature of more senior government) has little delegated power to deal effectively with those issues, local governments appear to be increasingly overwhelmed by the growing urban fiscal, social, and ecological crises which surround them (Magnuson 1990). While municipal, regional, and provincial governments seek ways to handle the increasingly complex agendas which face them, community groups are organising to influence their own quality of life. Such groups frequently ignore purposefully planners and other professionals (Nozick 1992). Those groups are exploring concepts such as ecologically sustainable community development and associated shared living concepts (Norwood 1994). The role of planners in these new concepts for urban living is often problematic. As Grant (1994: 10) noted, "while most planners recognize the significance of values in planning . . . until recently few discussed the importance of community values and history in setting the context for planning." This study will explore that recent interest.  9  Community planners appear to be constantly at the epicentre of the whirlwind of pressure surrounding the allocation of resources. But, the pressure comes from two disparate sources, each with its own requirements. Those two pressure points are: globalisation of economies including the role that municipal, regional, and provincial governments play in that trend, and the dissatisfaction by local communities with the implications of those trends. Thus, planners are caught between addressing the details of everyday life on the one hand (often identified by the public) and the broad visions which look to the role of the city/region in the global environment on the other hand (often identified by politicians). Planners appear to be faced with the problem of balancing the needs of increasingly divergent client groups. Some have claimed that planners have missed the mark (see: Jacobs 1992 and Sewell 1993)*. But, few, i f any, have asked planners what they think. The dilemma threatening community planning is this: the more that community planners attempt to respond to global economic trends and influences upon city and regional form, wellbeing, and structures (e.g. identifying new transportation routes to move goods between centres), the less that community planners may be perceived by communities and their citizens to be relevant to local community concerns (e.g. maintaining neighbourhood quality of life). Paradoxically, the more that community planners try and reflect local community aspirations (as  There is increasing evidence of general dissatisfaction with the planning profession as noted in the popular press. For instance, in The Globe and Mail September 9th, 1995 David Barber, the newspaper's urban writer, in an article entitled Mending our lovely metros. suggested that a major reason for the problems of cities rests at the feet of planning. Of all the many 'modernisms' invented and discarded in the 20th century, planning remains the most resilient - and the most shopworn. It is time to retire it. Based on the notion that the creation of human communities can be governed by legalistic formulas, modem planning is a fundamental cause of urban alienation. Moreover, the emergence of a new industrial economy has obviated its central concern: the regulation of land use. In Toronto, as in other parts of Canada, community planning is often seen as a problem rather than a solution. It is also seen by some others as an impediment to the 'new' economy. In particular, the article considers zoning to be a special evil created by planners. Until the early 1980's, planners have sold citizens and politicians on the merits of exclusionary zoning and, as might be expected, have been aligned with that regulatory tool, even though many community planners now advocate mixed use land use concepts. More recently, some citizens have used frequently the 'merits' of exclusionary zoning to oppose changes to their communities. Planners taught those 'merits' well. Now, communities see planners as the 'enemy' attempting to break their neighbourhood's exclusiveness by introducing unwanted uses, such as group homes, affordable housing, increased housing density and other new uses. Despite recent evidence to the contrary, the linkage between community well being and exclusionary zoning has stuck. 10  promoted by local citizens), the less they may be seen to address the economic global forces which are affecting city and regional employment and economic well-being (as seen by politicians/decision makers). As a result, community planners may be either vilified by some citizens as promoters of a non-community based economic model of global determinism or by some politicians as defenders of local community needs over benefits to the greater city and regional community (i.e., economic) good. At stake may be the relevance of community planning and the credibility of the Canadian planning profession. John Sewell (1994: 144), a former Mayor of Toronto and former Chair of 1991-93 Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario and strong advocate for sound planning, claimed that "instead of approving direction, planning set out roadblocks." Planners have come to be seen, even by some of their staunchest allies as impediments. Although there appears to be a wide assortment of opinions about planners by non-planners and by planners who are academics, there is little about what practitioners think of their role and their relationships to the various interests that affect communities. Maurice Strong the Director-General of the 1992 U N Environment Summit spoke to the role of planners when he discussed cities as centres of power with very significant forces affecting the distribution of resources and benefits. At the 1995 Joint American Planning Association and Canadian Institute of Planners Annual Conference in Toronto, he noted in his address that "the battle for sustainability will clearly be won or lost in urban centres, where the majority of the world's population will live." Strong, also stated that "our current quality of life cannot be taken for granted; it is at risk. It is not at all inevitable and certain that our future will be better . . . it will take intervention to sustain." He challenged planners to recognise the important role they play in shaping the well-being of the world around them, "a new, more humane, more secure and sustainable world." He continued by noting that "planning has become one of the most challenging and most necessary pursuits of the modem era." Strong set out the requirements: I am convinced that we are at a crossroads in the human experience in which the scale of the human population and the intensity of its activities have now made us the primary actors in shaping our own evolution. We are now literally in command of our own evolution. What we do or fail to do in this generation will, in fact, determine our future. And I believe that future will be largely shaped in the next decade or so. Planners must now move to the centre stage [emphasis added].  11  Is the planning profession able to address that challenge? What do planners think their role should be in the future?  Len Gertler has also challenged the profession. At the 1994 annual conference, he called upon the Canadian Institute of Planners to participate actively in "the defining of a new development model". He proposed that: we again run the risk of irrelevancy (as we did during our abdication in the thirties) by not relating with sufficient vigour to the priority issues of our time. These are the issues from the break-up of the old development model, as well as the complexion of the current world problematique: population . . ., environment, energy and food, and the drive for greater equality in the sharing of global resources. He continued by challenging CIP to explore the requirements for a new development model. I want to leave you with a proposal. I suggest that the Canadian Institute of Planners initiate within the next two years an inquiry on a New Development Model for Canada. The terms of reference, which I can only imply, would have to be broad. . . . (T)he enquiry would address both risks and opportunities. It would declare a search for the ingredients of sustainability. It would be multi-sectoral. It would identify spheres of competition, and spheres of cooperation. We can anticipate that the New Model would be comprehensive, flexible, innovative, priority-setting, and participatory. It would address the implementation challenge of what has been called Canada's 'continuous administrative crisis': the mismatch between a bureaucracy organized by function, and the need for coordinated problem-solving and action -across functions (Gertler 1995: 27). This thesis will examine i f planners think that the future of planning rests in identifying appropriate new concepts of planning action*.  At the 1996 Annual Conference of CIP, another well known Canadian planner, Ron Clark, noted that planners "have too easily wimped out or retreated into (a) technical apolitical shell" (Wight citing Clark 1996a: 10). Wight (1996a: 10) summarised Clark's address in this way: we are in an unprecedented paradigm shift context, . . . a rupture, a total break from the past. Old definitions of success need to be jettisoned, but replaced by what? . . . Where does this leave the "profession" of planning - does it need reinventing, or will it be a casualty of the rupture?  * It is important to note that the survey of Canadian planners reported in this thesis took place prior to Strong's and Gertler's challenges. Even so, the questionnaire had a similar question that answers how planners feel about both their challenges. 12  No one (academic or practitioner) has examined the planning profession in Canada to determine what the profession thinks about itself or its role in Canadian society in the face of the challenges before it. Those challenges come from a broad array of areas and people; from ecological, social and economic changes facing planners' clients (private and public), from modern day communities and politicians who are seeking answers to the critical issues facing them, from academics who have criticised planning methods and content, from prominent leaders who have called for planners to respond to the emerging challenges facing society, and from practitioners themselves*. A l l of those groups are becoming frustrated with existing methods and processes. Some have suggested that, i f planners are not up for the task, then others will be. In all of this, however, there is very little information on what planners themselves think they need to do. Many academics have identified changes that are required to planning practice. Some of those changes require significant modification to the way planners work and how they interact with their client groups such as politicians and the public. For instance Friedmann (1987) has called upon planners to take on a broader role and be in the vanguard of "Social Mobilization." Forester (1989) believes that planners can affect the "dynamics of power." Some of these challenges to planners may not be realistic in the face of practitioners' everyday work environment. Recently, Wight (1998: 3) has asked some probing questions: Some may believe that we have already turned too far right, and are heading for an overly corporate destination; others may worry that we as a profession are still too far to the left, for these are rather neoconservative times. How can we balance markets and communities as competing anchors for our allegiance? Can we professionally embody -rather than deny- the dialectic, while maintaining a confident handle on the interplay of globalization and localization? Can we unite these opposites in a 'glocalization" as it where? This would truly be paradigm-busting!  "Concerns . . . have been voiced repeatedly . . . by a growing number of members" of the Canadian Institute of Planners. "CIP conferences at Minaki in 1968, Saskatoon in 1972, Toronto in 1973, Charlottetown in 1974 and Sudbury in 1985 are remembered by many planners as the landmark conferences at which ethical issues related to the substance and style of planning were raised, and calls were made for planners to consider the critical questions facing the profession" (Mathur 1991: 7). 13  Before, we begin to explore new paradigms, we will need to examine what the profession thinks of its future and its role. Simply, we don't know enough about what the profession thinks of itself or what the profession does (i.e., the content and context of planning)* in order to modify planning practice so that it is able to address the challenges facing it. In addition, there are reasons why planners act the way they do. But we know very little about those reasons. Too often, we have speculated and assumed that planners are able to simply change the way they do things and, in so doing, to correct them. If we are to make changes to the profession, we must first understand it. We need to take time to explore what planners do and why they do it before we can make adjustments to practice and theory which informs practice. This dissertation explores the opinions of current planning practitioners regarding traditions, methods, relationship with the public and politicians, and role in decision-making. It also explores planners' views about planning education and the potential role of the profession's representative body, the Canadian Institute of Planners. The dissertation proposes ways for the profession to address the challenges it faces.  1.2 Organisation of Dissertation This Chapter, Chapter 1, sets out the context for the research. Chapter 2 identifies the problem statement, associated research objectives, questions and methodology. Chapter 3 provides an historical review of selected influences upon planning. This review generates a number of questions about the influence of professional planning traditions upon current practice. The questions are developed at the end of each review section. As explained below, they provide the basis for the questionnaire that I submitted to a sample of practising planners. Chapter 3 suggests that community planners have long been influenced by the forces of self-interest, contest, and economics associated with city building and questions whether and how the current role of planners has been influenced by that history. Chapter 3 also explores the rich ground of social change exemplified at the turn of the century and questions whether the * See Grant (1994: 10). 14  planning orientation of that period can be revived within planning or whether the period was atypical for a profession more rooted in the promotion of the status quo. Chapter 3 also examines the tenuous relationship between theory and practice and raises questions about problems created by the disjunction between what planners do and what many planning theorists propose that planners should do. The extensive literature review raises a number of fundamental issues that have implications for key questions that need to be posed to, and addressed by, planning practitioners. Chapter 4 analyses the findings of my survey of selected members of the Canadian Institute of Planners. Attention is focused on their views about the state of planning in Canada, their work, their relationship to the public and politicians, their professional experience, their opinions of selected aspects of planning theory, and their roles. Chapter 4 also reviews the internal and external pressures which have helped to shape the current agenda of CIP and its response to emerging needs and challenges. Chapter 5 explores the implications arising from my research findings. In particular, Chapter 5 examines how -substantively and procedurally- a new model of planning might be constructed by and for planners to address their professional concerns.  1.3 Defining Terminology Two central themes are woven throughout the dissertation. One relates to the practice of professional planning. The second theme is community. Each will be explored and defined for the purposes of this dissertation.  1.3.1 Professional Planning Planning is a generic term that has been used by a variety of professions to describe many varied decision processes which look to defining or identifying expected or preferred futures. Hence, there are a large number of people in a variety of roles who refer to themselves as planners. In order to identify the particular type of planning involved, adjectives are frequently used. For instance, estate planners, hospital planners, education planners, travel planners have used the 15  term to help describe what they do. Friedmann (1987) identified a "full range of contemporary planning practice" by noting 30 types of "planning in market societies" at three levels of government). It is the field of urban, regional and resource planning which is the focus of our discussion. In this thesis, "professional planning" refers to practice in the field of urban, regional and resource planning. Conceptions of this fieldvary: Planning has sometimes been understood either as a technical problem-solving endeavor or (somewhat the opposite) as purely a matter of the hustle, bustle, and nastiness of politics . . . but such stereotypes poorly capture the realities of planning practice. That practice is both far more complex and far more fascinating than these images suggest (Forester 1989: 4). Hall (1992) explored the dictionary definition of planning. In that he found "real ambiguity" (Hall: 1). As he noted: The verb 'to plan', and the nouns 'planning' and 'planner' that are derived from it, . . . do not refer to the art of drawing up a physical plan or design on paper. They can mean either 'to arrange the parts of, or 'to realize the achievement of, or, more vaguely, 'to intend'. The most common meaning of 'planning' involves both the first two of these elements: planning is concerned with deliberately achieving some objective, and it proceeds by assembling actions into some orderly sequence. One dictionary definition, in fact, refers to what planning does; the other, to how planning does it. Earlier, professional planners defined planning in more concrete terms, such as the following: . . . as science, an art, and a movement of policy concerned with the shaping and guiding of the physical growth and arrangement of towns in harmony with their social and economic needs (Adams 1935: 21) . . . is the effort to control, to guide, and to accomplish the physical development of towns and cities and thereby to provide for the people who are living and working in them, the best possible environment (Lohman 1931: 1). . . . the unified development of urban communities and their environs, and states, regions, and the nation, as expressed through determination of the comprehensive arrangement of land uses and land occupancy and the region thereof (Lewis 1949: 8, citing the 1946 American Institute of Planners' definition). It appears that planning had a distinctive role during the early part of this century. As Hall (1992: 7) concluded, "from about 1920 until 1960, the classic sequence taught to all planning students was survey-analysis-plan." The comparable period in Canada, as defined by Gerecke (1977), was 16  "inactivity" between 1932 and 1943 and "restart" between 1944 and 1951. Thus, the definition of Canadian planning during that time was constrained by a limited view of planning activity or the lack of planning activity altogether. It was only after World War II that "the question of the study of planning method was raised" (Camhis: 1979: 3). While planning appears to have had a reasonably defined framework during the earlier part of this century, recent evidence suggests that a modern definition of planning is more difficult to agree upon. For instance, Hall (1992: 1) wrote: Planning . . . is an extremely ambiguous and difficult word to define. Planners of all kinds think that they know what it means: it refers to the work they do. The difficulty is that they do all sorts of different things, and so they mean different things by the word; planning seems to be all things to all men. Friedmann (1987: 27) defined planning as the "management of change within territorially organized societies." Forester (1989: 3) defined planning as "the guidance of future action." As part of a broader re-thinking about the state of planning, Friedmann (1992: 6) states that "planning, then, is defined as that professional practice which specifically seeks to connect forms of knowledge with forms of action in the public domain." Gertler et al (1987: 9) offered the following definition: "Planning is a process which is part of the societal guidance system influencing and controlling the nature and direction of change in a purposeful manner so that predetermined objectives are attained and goals pursued."  In addition to the definition of planning, consideration should be given to defining what is meant by the profession of planning. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990) defines profession as "occupation, especially in some branch of advanced learning or science; body of persons engaged in this." Professional is defined as "belonging to or connected with a profession; having or showing the skill of a professional; engaged in specified activity as one's main paid occupation."  In a 1976 survey of Canadian planners, known as the Page/Lang Report and published in 1978, professional was described as an occupational group with these attributes: •  exclusive claim to a coherent body of specialised systematic, abstract knowledge. The professional claims sole right to practice in this field. 17  • • • • • • •  extended period of technical training in a professional school with an established core curriculum, as a prerequisite to practice. a service ideal; primary orientation and sense of responsibility to the public interest rather than toward individual self-interest (including monetary reward). balance between (a) deep commitment to an interest in the work of the profession, in the pursuit and systematising of knowledge, and (b) detachment . . . sense of community with fellow professionals; and a feeling of collective responsibility. peer control over who can practice and how; often legal right to self-police. Relative freedom from lay control and judgement as to quality of service performed. a code of professional (ethical) conduct. existence of a professional organisation with power to ensure competence of its practitioners and to enforce ethical standards (Page/Lang: 2).  The adjective best used to describe the type of professional planning that is at the focus of this study is 'community' planning. Community planning is assumed to include "a range from the neighbourhood and village to the metropolis and region" (Gertler et al 1987: 5). As noted by Gertler et al (1987: 5), community planning has moved dramatically away from its original preoccupation with physical form and layout to "include planning as part of the societal guidance system, as the purposeful intervention in the process of change, or as an activity undertaken by institutions such as governments which is intended to lead to the identification and selection among policy alternatives in a rational and logical manner."  For the purposes of this dissertation, community planning alternative  courses of action,  is defined as the consideration of  which may affect the well-being of communities,  knowledge to action to address ramifications  of change and to identify purposeful  by  linking  intervention  in society which minimises the detrimental consequences and increases the positive benefits of change.  While much of the community planning undertaken in Canada is done by non-professionals, such as community groups, self-trained advocates and by other professionals, such as surveyors and architects, there does exist a body which has since 1919 been representing a group of planning practitioners in Canada.  That body, the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP), was  originally founded as the Town Planning Institute of Canada. In 1923 the Town Planning  18  Institute of Canada was granted a federal charter. CIP has grown into a body of approximately 5,000 members, including all member categories. There are five types of members: Fellow, Full,  Provisional, Student, and Retired. CIP has  identified: Responsible Professional Planning Experience (to) mean work: a) comprising analysis, projection, design or program development which specifically requires consideration of the inter-relationships of space and time among resources, facilities and activities and which expresses this consideration in a manner to influence the disposition of land or the allocation of resources, facilities or services, b) which shows a specific relationship to public policies or programs for controlling or influencing the development of communities, c) which comprises a substantive component of initiative, judgment, substantial involvement and personal accountability or definition or preparation of significant elements of the program work" (Canadian Institute of Planners Membership Manual. 1992). CIP requires that a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP) (i.e. full member) "has a university degree in planning or other area, has logged years of responsible planning experience, and has met the examination requirements of the Institute" (Canadian Institute of Planners Membership Manual. 1992). Following acceptance for membership, members agree to adhere to a Code of Professional Conduct and Statement of Values. CIP is challenged to provide a dual role, first as a body that looks out for the interests of its members and secondly as a corporate entity that has at its heart making society a better place to live and ensuring resources are allocated without detrimental environmental degradation (Statement of Values). While CIP is undoubtedly a professional planning body, not all practising planners in Canada are members of CIP. Although members must meet specific criteria before being accepted to membership, membership is not mandatory in all provincial jurisdictions to practice community planning.* Since provincial bodies regulate professions in Canada, regulatory requirements for planners  *The requirement for registration of all those who practice professional planning has been an on-going debate amongst some CIP members. But CIP has determined that such registration would either not be practical or would be impossible to try and manage.  19  vary between provincial jurisdictions*.  While other organisations in Canada, such as the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects and Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, have members who call themselves planners, CIP is the only professional body whose primary purpose is to promote professional planning in Canada. For the purposes of this dissertation, the profession of community planning in Canada will be considered to be represented by the Canadian Institute of Planners.  1.3.2 Community The definition of community is meaningful to this review. The definition is important, for, as Pahl (cited by Bailey 1975) noted " . . . community has acquired a high level of use and a low level of meaning" (Bailey: 84). Lawson (1992) concluded that the inability to identify what a community is has created problems for measuring community needs. Two primary approaches to our understanding of society influence the definition of community. One relates to a view of society as consensual. The other views society  in a state of class  struggle. The former is premised upon a concept that society's basic institutions are legitimate and pluralistic. The latter believes that class struggle is the necessary condition for real change.  This study is based upon the view that Marxist class struggle does not provide a means for planners to help achieve effective understanding of community or community change. Instead, community-centred action which seeks appropriate change for community as identified by community in its societal context -not societal revolution- is the more likely means for planners to address the pressures facing society and communities. Friedmann (1987: 342) articulated that view when he wrote, "the aim, then, of this revolution-in-making is not to 'capture' the state or * F o r instance, within Alberta and British C o l u m b i a , anyone using the term "registered planner" must be a full member o f the provincial affiliate o f C I P . In Saskatchewan, anyone who describes oneself as a " c o m m u n i t y planner" must be a member o f the Association o f Professional C o m m u n i t y Planners o f Saskatchewan w h i c h automatically involves membership i n C I P . A n d i n Quebec all practising urban planners must be a member o f the Ordre des urbanistes du Quebec w h i c h may involve membership i n C I P i f the O U Q member so requests.  20  even to 'smash' capitalism -those hollow phrases o f another century- but to remake everyday life." Y e t , the city as a place o f contest is imbedded i n its history (Mumford 1961)*.  Friedmann's view o f the concept o f community i n relation to its recovery o f "a genuine political community" (Friedmann 1987: 326) and his opinion that "the struggle, then, is for a recovery o f the political community on which our Western ideas o f democratic governance are based" (Friedmann 1987: 327) is relevant to this study. The premise here is that political community not only as conceived by Western, but also other cultures, must ensure that decisions have community-based 'common agreement on action' underpinning them**.  Friedmann (1987: 344) identified four characteristics o f political: territorial base; historical continuity; citizen members; a n d ensemble o f communities amongst which citizenship is shared. To achieve that political community, he felt the goal was: to shift the axis o f power accumulation i n society from the vertical, which connects the domain o f the corporate economy to the state, to the horizontal, w h i c h relates c i v i l society to political community. A s its public face, political community is c i v i l society organized for a life i n common. A n d at the core o f this conception is the household economy as the first and smallest political community i n history.  •  Castells (1983) felt that social movements based upon conflict (not turmoil or revolution) were responsible for significant change in city institutions.  ** Much of the author's experience with community agreement-building is a result of twenty years of work with First Nations. That work has involved long term relationships with Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario aboriginal communities, providing land use advice, resource planning advice, land claim negotiation assistance, hydro compensation and mitigation negotiation assistance and economic development advice. The author developed close working relationships with many of those communities, their people, elders and political leaders, principally with Cross Lake First Nation, Norway House Indian Band, Wabaseemoong Independent Nations, and Lucky Man Cree Nation. Those communities arrived at 'common agreement on action' in their decision-making processes. The author was frequently intimately associated with those processes which often involved the elders of the community, the 'elected' political leaders, women and men, and the young people. This did not appear to be a 'consensus' process but rather a 'meeting of the minds'; a process that encouraged and tolerated open discussion of different views and ended in 'common agreement on action' without retribution for holding a different opinion. This was a process that did not entail voting, but rather encouraged dialogue, even open disagreement. But, after much debate there 'emerged' a sense of closure and 'common agreement on action'. While not everyone might agree, the vast majority of the community members who participated would endorse the decision by quietly acknowledging an interpretation of what had been agreed. These processes were remarkable for their simplicity, openness, tolerance, and sense of cohesiveness, even in the face of major potentially fractious debates over millions of dollars of compensation and associated in-community political posturing. 21  Friedmarin (1987: 86) noted that political community could be found at "different levels of spatial integration." It was his contention that society must reclaim the "public domain" through four actions: a genuine political life with widespread citizen involvement; territorial autonomy in production and politics; the collective self-production of life; and  the discovery of one's  individuality in the context of specific social relations (Friedmann: 387). Those proposed actions frame much of the discussion of community well-being in this paper. McMillan and Chavis (1986) proposed a definition of community that had four elements: membership; influence; integration and fulfillment of needs; and shared emotional connection. Bailey (1975: 84) set out a definition that included reference to but not dependence on consensus: "Generally, community is used to describe social relations within a limited geographical area where people's most important social contacts are local ones and where people share their most salient characteristics -that is, consensus." Gerecke (1991: 256) defined community in terms of empowerment: "Community is built from groups, and to empower people, to allow the individual to test out and try out their own self, that is to experience self-empowerment, groups must be small." Empowerment is central to any debate about re-invigoration of community. Pacione (1990) notes that, although modern social networks usually extend beyond the traditional neighbourhood, the local community remains an important entity for many residents. Nozick (1992) also examines the concept of community and identified it as a way of doing, both in terms of expressing values and undertaking enterprise. She portrays a strengthened community as one in which community culture was well-defined "as the collective expression of our shared history, traditions, values and ways of life -it is the life force and soul of a community, the glue which holds our communities together" (Nozick: 11). As an action, "community engendered and controlled development contributes toward a sustainable future for all" (Nozick: 15). That notion of 'community as doing' is an important principle which should be carried in any definition of community.  22  Reflecting the foregoing descriptions of community, the following definition of community is proposed for use in this work. Community is a social collection of small groups of empowered  individuals whose basic form is the household and who live together in a limited geographic area and share in the collective self-production of life while acting in their common interest to affect the public domain and promote the enhancement of their quality of life while recognising their responsibilities to and place within broader society. That definition will guide the study and the relationship of planning to community. It reflects the thinking of a number of planning theorists.  1.3.3 Dealing with the natural world While the focus of this dissertation is upon the relationship between community planning and human communities, the intertwining of the natural world and community life necessitates that planning practice and theory include the natural environment for: the structures and processes of everyday life, and the structures and processes that cause environmental problems, are one and the same. Environmental problems are therefore social and cultural issues which can rarely be separated from their context (Rogers: 1994: 1). Thus, this dissertation recognises that any reconsideration of community planning must of necessity consider a comprehensive relationship of people, communities and resources. Such an approach is consistent with the roots of Canadian planning at the turn of the century and the work of the Commission of Conservation when: the planning profession in this country emerged early in this century as a spin-off of a comprehensive probe on conservation, defined inclusively to include natural resources as well as people and their communities (Gertler: 1995: 14).  1.4 Summary Planners face an uncertain future. That future needs to be better understood. Through a survey of planning practitioners it is possible to determine what planners think of their future, what they believe are the key issues affecting that future and what courses.of action are needed to affect that future. 23  2. Problem Statement The planning profession is faced with a number of challenges as it enters the next millennium. Firstly, it is affected by the external challenges facing all professions -as identified by John Ralston Saul (1993) and Alastair Mclntyre (1984)- and secondly it is affected by challenges from within the planning profession. The challenges from outside the planning profession and within the planning profession very likely create instability, a sense of insecurity and lack of well-being, and questionable role for planning practitioners. While many of the challenges to the planning profession from outside the profession may lie beyond the profession's direct control, many of the challenges from within the profession lie within the profession's purview to modify and rectify. But, first the profession needs to have a solid understanding of itself, what it does, why it does it and what it thinks of its role. Although there is much written about what planners should do and how they should do it, there has not been a recent thorough review of the profession's view of itself and what its members think it should do. Current planning methods and roles are likely affected by the history of planning. That history could also influence potential future roles of planners. The work of practitioners and their credibility is also likely influenced by planning theorists who have developed views about appropriate roles for planners. As communities seek to gain greater control over their local urban agenda, they increasingly challenge traditional sources of urban power and those associated with it, including planners. Planners and others, such as Clark, Gertler, and Strong, have challenged members of the Canadian Institute of Planners to respond to the needs of modem society. If planners are to establish a more appropriate role, they will need to consider their history and planning literature, their current and desired roles, and opportunities and constraints to a modified role. In the past, planning theorists have outlined proposals for modifying planning practice without asking the affected practitioners. But, without a better understanding of what practitioners think, it will not be possible to identify a future role for planners which has a likely chance of support by those most affected, the practitioners themselves.  24  This study examines the influences upon planning practice, as described in the literature. It describes what planners think and what they believe is needed to address their future role. Chapter 3 describes what we know now. Chapter 4 explores what we don't know: i.e., what practitioners think about all of this.  2.1 Research objectives The research objectives of this study are: a) to examine the morale, health and role of the planning profession by reviewing planning literature and completing a survey of the planning profession. b) to determine what changes practitioners think are required to the profession. c) to identify what practitioners think is a desired future role for planners. d) to identify a potential methodological basis for planning action to assist planners to achieve that role and address their concerns. r  2.2 Research questions While there will very likely always be a need for planners and a place for planners to apply their skills, the key questions that must be answered in exploring an invigorated future of Canadian planning are these: •  What do planners think of the state of their profession?  •  What has influenced it? (particularly the influence of power and politics of place)  •  What do they think is required to modify the profession?  •  What do they think of the future of the profession?  •  What do they think their role should be?  •  What do they think should be done to help strengthen that role?  •  What role do they believe the professional body for community planning in Canada, the Canadian Institute of Planners, should play in this discussion?  •  What response do practitioners think is required to address some of the issues and challenges facing the profession?  •  What do planners think of planning education and selected aspects of planning theory?  •  How can the academic arm of planning better inform practice? 25  •  What opportunity is there to modify practice?  2.3 Methodology Planning has a long association with social science theory and application. As a result, planning has moved frequently in parallel with social research methods. That movement has included the use of quantitative and qualitative research techniques. This section describes the method employed in the research for this dissertation. Two major methodological perspectives have dominated social science according to Bogdan and Taylor (1975). These are: positivism and phenomenology. As Bogdan and Taylor (1975: 2) note, "the positivist seeks the facts or causes of social phenomena with little regard for the subjective states of individuals" and "the phenomenologist is concerned with understanding human behavior from the actor's own frame of reference  . . . (examining) how the world is  experienced." The former often derives findings from quantifiable constructs, the latter from qualitative description techniques. More particularly, " . . . qualitative methodologies refer to research procedures which produce descriptive data: people's own written or spoken words and observable behavior" (1975: 4).  They also note that "qualitative methods allow us to know people personally and to see them as they are developing their own definitions of the world" (4). Miles and Huberman (1984: 15) point out that "qualitative data, in the form of words rather than numbers, have always been the staple of certain social sciences." They confirm that "more and more researchers in fields with a traditional quantitative emphasis ( . . . urban planning . . .) have shifted to a more qualitative emphasis. Qualitative data are attractive. They are a source of well-grounded, rich descriptions and explanations of processes occurring in local contexts" (15). This dissertation will rely primarily upon qualitative research techniques to determine the views of Canadian professional planners. Quantitative analysis will be limited to frequency counts of questionnaire responses.  Glasser and Strauss set out the basis for undertaking qualitative research in their classic 1967  26  book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory. In it they wrote: . . . the adequacy of a theory . . . cannot be divorced from the process by which it is generated. Thus, one canon for judging the usefulness of a theory is how it was generated and thus we suggest that it is likely to be a better theory to the degree that it has been inductively developed from social research (5). In particular, Glaser and Strauss also concluded: Generating a theory from data means that most hypotheses and concepts not only come from the data, but are systematically worked out in relation to the data during the course of the research. Generating a theory involves a process of research. B y contrast, the source of certain ideas, or even 'models', can come from sources other than the data (6). The research completed for this dissertation is based upon the belief that it is critical to determine what planners think about their profession by asking them rather than postulating about what they might be thinking or what might be appropriate for them. Miles and Huberman (1984: 22) identified five phases in qualitative research: anticipatory; data collection period; data reduction; data displays; and conclusion drawing/verification. They describe the "domain called analysis" as having three out of the five phases: data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing/verification (1984: 22). They note that "qualitative data analysis is a continuous iterative enterprise" (23). They suggest that the collection of data will be instructed by what the researcher knows of the subject. They note that: Highly inductive and loosely designed studies make good sense when researchers have plenty of time and are exploring exotic cultures, understudied phenomena or very complex social realities. But when one is interested in some better-understood social phenomena within a familiar culture or subculture, a loose, highly inductive design is a waste of time. . . . Predictably enough, most of the qualitative research now being done lies between these two extremes. Something is known conceptually about the phenomenon, but not enough to house a theory (27). The knowledge that informed my data collection is derived from an ongoing interest in planning history (as summarised in Chapter 3) and from my own personal experiences as a practising planner working with other planners, observing them and talking with them. From those two sources have been derived a number of general questions about planning, such questions as those ending each section of Chapter 3. These questions were operationalized into a questionnaire (Appendix 1) that was distributed to a sample of CIP members to determine their views of the profession and its context. Analysis of the questionnaire survey results provide 27  insight into the challenges facing planners today, the nature of their individual responses and the actions the profession's institution might take to help planners deal coherently with the challenges they face in a more effective manner. Glaser and Strauss termed such work as "field and documentary." "Documentary qualitative material helps researchers better understand field and provide descriptive analysis" (p.161). As Glaser and Strauss noted, " i n discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence; the evidence from which the category emerged is used to illustrate the concept" (23). In my work, the review of planning literature provided conceptual categories. Out of that research I developed a series of questions to determine the status of planning practice. From the findings of this survey, I was able to refine concepts about the nature and status of planning practice in Canada, and to develop normative theory that could potentially address these concepts. "The evidence may not be accurate beyond a doubt. . . but the concept is undoubtedly a relevant theoretical abstraction about what is going on in the area studied" (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 23). Glaser and Strauss proceeded to note that the job is not to "have all the facts . . . not to provide a perfect description of an area, but to develop a theory that accounts for much of the relevant behavior" (30).  Glaser and Strauss also confirmed the importance of coding categories from the findings. Such coding "very soon starts to generate theoretical properties of the category" (106). Miles and Huberman also reviewed the importance to "pattern coding" (67). They stated that "pattern codes are explanatory or inferential codes, ones that identify an emergent theme, pattern, or explanation that the site suggests to the analyst" (67). Coding was used in the review of my survey results to determine preliminary findings by identifying key words and a sense of similarities and differences between sub-groups of planners, such as consulting and government planners. Glaser and Strauss (107) suggested that the researcher reaches a point when it is time to stop coding and begin to write down ideas/impressions. That technique was used in this dissertation to provide a 'picture' of overall views of planners in relation to the planning literature. Glaser and Strauss noted that such analysis "especially facilitates the generation of theories of process, sequence, and change" (114). In my case, a theory began to emerge about the state of planning practice and a potential 'developmental' theory of planning. 28  2.3.1 Questionnaire A survey of provisional and full members of the Canadian Institute of Planners was completed in the early spring of 1994 to determine the views of Canadian planners. The mailed questionnaire (Appendix 1) was sent to a random sample of CIP provisional and full members. The questionnaire included both open-ended and close-ended questions as per Smith (1981). Recognising that "question wording has long been considered the number one problem in survey research" (Smith 1981: 155), I developed a draft questionnaire and tested it in the fall of 1993 by submitting it to ten planners to seek comments on clarity of the questions and provide feedback on potential types of responses. The ten test planners were asked to respond to the survey and provide their comments on its clarity and their understanding of the intent of the questions. Following that feedback, the questionnaire was modified and finalised. The nine page questionnaire was composed of check-response questions and detailed open-ended questions. A total of 51 question areas were provided. The questionnaire required approximately 45 minutes to one hour to complete. A total of 502 CIP members, out of a total provisional and full membership of 3,580 at that time, were surveyed using a stratified random selection of potential respondents (i.e. beginning with a random selection from the first ten members whose name began with 'A' and every seventh member thereafter). This sample represented 14 percent of all eligible provisional and full members of CIP. A total of 133 responses or 27 percent of the sample or 4 percent of all full and provisional members were completed and returned*.  The questionnaire was developed by a practitioner for practitioners. Words and phrases used were developed from discussions held with planners across Canada over a five year period prior to the dissertation research being undertaken. By linking the questions and words to previous  * That return compares favourably with a survey on salaries of CIP members undertaken in 1993. That two page survey which required approximately 5 minutes to complete had a response rate of 31%.  29  discussions with practitioners, I felt that the questions would have a much better chance of being understood. The test respondents' feedback was sought through an interview format and written comments on the draft survey form. This was an important test of the survey to determine choice of words and their interpretation. Based upon that feedback, several questions were modified and clarified. Bailey (1978) reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of a mailed questionnaire. The former are: "substantial savings of time and money, greater assurance of anonymity, lack of interview bias, accessibility" (156). As suggested by Bailey, a return envelope was provided for my respondents. Since the questionnaire was intended to be anonymous, follow-up to increase response rate was not possible. Bailey (1978) identified a number of problems which can be encountered in undertaking a questionnaire. Ensuring anonymity is particularly problematic. The questionnaire provided for complete anonymity*, except for return postal stamp notation. Of especial note is Bailey's reference to ensuring question relevance. As he notes, "relevance has three different facets here: (1) relevance of the study's goals; (2) relevance of questions to the goals of the study; and (3) relevance of the questions to the individual respondent" (1978: 95). Given my experience in planning and work with the Canadian Institute of Planners, I knew that practitioners believed that the topic, issues and research goals were important. Many of them had discussed their concerns with me. Many had raised issues about the state of the profession during my tenure as President of the Canadian Institute of Planners. A covering letter was sent out to each selected respondent to outline the intent of the research (Appendix 1). In addition, the respondents must believe that the questions themselves are relevant to the goals of the research project. As Bailey (1978) noted, " i f you cannot decide in advance how the data will be used, do not ask the question (because).... the respondent . . . considers his or her time to be precious and does not want to waste it on needless questions" (96). The questions were  * A large number of respondents attached their business card to the returned questionnaire. 30  tested with the test group of ten planners to determine their relevance. Each question was selected for its ability to provide information about the respondent (e.g. local government staff or consultant, planning education) and about the current status of planning as seen through his or her eyes. Nominal, ordinal and interval scaling were presented. Ordinal scale questions provide an opportunity to determine the relative views of respondents. In my questionnaire, I used scales that determined levels of agreement (i.e. agree strongly, agree somewhat and do not agree). As Bailey (1978) suggested, easy-to-answer questions were placed first and open-ended questions were placed toward the end of the questionnaire. The questions relating to planning literature were based upon the broad reading of planning literature described in Chapter 3.1 examined a diversity of planning literature to gain a sense of what writers of planning, most of whom are academics, thought about the state of planning, past and present. Out of that literature review, I was able to identify a number of key question areas and questions which would indicate the degree of agreement practitioners might have with that planning thought. In addition, I asked a number of 'technical' questions, such as what tools planners use and what planners do, based upon my over 20 years of experience as a practitioner. B y noting the postal stamp on each returned envelope, it was possible to determine that surveys were returned from members from all of the affiliates of CIP. The returned surveys were examined in terms of the overall views of planners, also in terms of contrasting views of government planners and consulting planners and within the government and consulting subgroups by length of practice. Following overall coding and detailed analysis of all responses, completed questionnaires were grouped into seven categories by type of practice (government and consulting) and length of practice (+20 years, 1 0 - 1 9 years and 9 years or less) and all others (i.e. teachers, retired, unemployed, students or in the non-profit sector: for a total of 15 'others'). Within the government sub-group, local government and other government planners (regional/provincial/federal) were also separately identified. The two sub-groups of government planners and the consulting planners were examined in detail to determine any sub-group trends. In addition, seven completed questionnaires were randomly selected from each of the following categories: one from all government and consulting planners with over 30 years of planning practice; two from planners with +20 years of planning practice (one each from 31  government and consulting); two from planners with 1 0 - 1 9 years of planning practice (one each from government and consulting); and two from planners with 9 years or less of planning practice (one each from government and consulting). Each randomly selected questionnaire was examined in detail to provide a detailed analysis of responses. This method was used to understand the specific thinking of individuals. This analytical technique was used to supplement the review of grouped responses and also substitute alternative methods, such as use of a focus group. Two surveys completed on behalf of CIP in 1978 and 1982 were also compared with my own survey. Those two surveys reveal the attitudes of Canadian planners during a time when the Canadian Institute of Planners was undergoing significant change caused by the growth of the profession and alterations to practice.  2.4 Summary The motivating question for this study relates to: what is the future of the planning profession? That question arises because of my years of professional planning practice in Canada, association with other planners and the Canadian Institute of Planners, and dialogue about the frustrations, challenges and satisfactions practitioners experience, in combination with my on-going reflection on planning history and theory literature. The research flowing out of the motivating question focuses on fellow practitioners' views of their own work, because they make the profession what it is. To the extent they have a realistic and coherent vision of their work, the profession can and likely will adopt that vision. To the extent they have frustrations, conflicts, confusions, and ignorance of each other, they cannot collectively advance as a profession to serve their interests and to support their contributions. So the empirical research focuses on their perspectives to determine the degree and nature of consensus or disagreements on a fundamental matter: what does it and should it mean to be a planner?  To get at these fundamentals, a questionnaire was designed to elicit qualitative responses to open-ended questions and to enable frequency counts on certain other items. To frame the 32  questionnaire so that the fundamentals are addressed, a historical review of the profession is required: where did it come from, what shaped its role, and its self-image? The questions can thus be framed to check on self-awareness and identities in terms of the various strains of planning through history. This review is completed in Chapter 3. Thus, the following chapter, Chapter 3, serves two purposes: to ground the objective challenges in the history of the planning of cities, as others have described it; and to identify categories for framing survey questions that I posed to elicit planners' views about the state of their profession.  33  3.  Introduction to the Challenges Facing the Planning Profession  The following sections explore the challenges to the planning profession and identify a number of questions which can be explored through research to help the profession address those challenges. The challenges relate to the planning profession's long-standing association with powerful elites, the role of politics in planning practice, the recent planning theory discourse which has criticised planning practice as being irrelevant and misguided, and the traditions and models of planning, some of which call upon planners to be in the vanguard of social change. In much of the literature about the major determinants of urban life, two constant themes emerge. These themes emphasise the role of power in decision-making (i.e., contest for place), and the role of consumption and production (i.e., economics of place). Although there has been a tendency in the literature to concentrate upon economic forces as the primary shaper of public policy and agenda action, there has been little research undertaken to determine what practising planners think of all of this. To provide context for the analysis of planners' views about their profession, the following section will examine the influence that contests of self-interest have had historically upon city governance in general and community planning in particular. Examining the historical context of planning provides an understanding of the forces that have shaped current planning theory and practice, and the challenges facing any attempts to modify planning practice. Out of that review a number of questions are identified to be posed to practitioners.  3.1 Historical factors affecting planning practice Humankind 'selected' a dynamic and exciting path when the people of the Neolithic Period began to cluster around places that offered special benefits. While initially chosen for purposes of religion, food production or other relevant functions, such sites created a new dynamic that was 34  11  both beneficial and ultimately threatening to its members. It brought clusters o f families together for mutual self-support.  Over time, however, these mutually supporting clusters became  embroiled in territorial issues that developed power and wealth generation  connotations.  Although, as descendants o f those people, current city populations often tend to romanticise about the images o f such communal living, others such as Bookchin (1989) point to a period that was less than ideal. In an attempt to seek solutions for today's cities, humankind too often attempts to identify simple answers from that overly simplified past. While it is important to search amongst the ruins o f those civilisations to attempt to learn much more about community life, such searches should be framed by the realities o f those times.  A s the following discussion w i l l show, those times were fraught with a history o f self-interest and contest that has continued to help shape the view o f cities, community, and associated planning. It is that competition and pursuit of individual benefit and the responses that took place within its shadow which should be more fully understood i f effective planning is to be grounded in the realities o f city governance and the politics which surround planning. That can best be examined in the general periods o f city governance: (1) early history; (2) the nineteenth century; and (3) the twentieth century.  A critical notion in any analysis  of the city is the realisation that the city is a very  recent outgrowth o f human activity (Pohlman 1986). That contemporary view offers  an  important insight into community planning. Cities should be thought o f not as fixed entities but as part of the process o f societal evolution, as places that need to continue to adjust to new realities. For instance, (Ward 1976: 16), who considered the history of cities as a record which "presents us with the ever-renewed round o f conquest predetermined by unshakable commitment to material ambition and greed," concluded that "the dominant themes begin to look much less closed and predetermined" for " the record . . . is much more open and promising." In order to better appreciate that evolutionary process and the potential for planning to intercede i n it, the following sections examine the historical context and more recent political developments i n the city. A brief review follows of the period of city evolution, the current product o f that  35  development, the roles of city planning, and the expected futures which may emerge from past and current experiences*. Each section of this chapter provides an understanding of a number of traditions in which modem day planning is embedded.  3.1.1 Early history of the city Modem civilisation and city are synonymous. Mumford (1961: 44) noted that the city reflected an "implosion" of power as humankind centralised daily life. From that implosion came "war and domination, rather than peace and cooperation." Mumford proceeded to describe the essence of the historic city  "as  a container of organized violence and a transmitter of war"  (Mumford: 46). He continued: The city, almost from its earliest emergence, despite its appearance of protection and security, brought with it the expectation not only of outward assault but likewise of intensified struggle within: a thousand little wars were fought in the marketplace, in the law courts, in the ball game of the arena. . . . The positive urban symbiosis was repeatedly displaced by an equally complex negative symbiosis (Mumford: 52-53). It is this identity of the city as a place of contest that has shaped much of the attitude toward the city of the present. Mumford defined the city of contest as a conscious decision that had two alternatives. "The first was the path of voluntary co-operation, mutual accommodation, wider communication and understanding . . . . The other was that of predatory domination, leading to  * Mandelbaum (1977), in The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge, reviewed the importance of historical accounts and the objectivity of historical knowledge. Mandelbaum (1977: 169) wrote that " the problem of objectivity in historical knowledge turns on the question of what controls the work of historians once they have set themselves some specific topic to investigate" and that"... histories are semiautonomous . . . not to be regarded as merely facets of the institutional life of a society . . . (but) they frequently are deeply influenced by the nature of that life and the changes taking place in it" (Mandelbaum: 21). This suggests that the interpretation of the history of self-interest carried out in this dissertation should be examined to determine the degree to which those interpretations are, in the words of Mandelbaum, accurate and reliable. To the extent that this interpretation is verified by Friedmann and Mumford (i.e. "planners had always sought support from ruling elites" (Friedmann 1987: 8), then it may be surmised that this interpretation is, if not accurate, at least reflective of others' interpretations. 36  heartless exploitation . . . " (Mumford: 89). Mumford believed that evolved into the later. "War and domination, rather than peace and co-operation, were ingrained in the original structure of the ancient city" (Mumford: 44). When citing the archaeologist Gordon Childe, Barbara Ward (1976: 13) noted that the invention of the city "is the story of accumulating wealth, of increasing specialization of labor and of expanding trade." Over time, Mumford believed, "every city became a pocket of insolent power, indifferent to those humane means of conciliation and intercourse which the city, in another mood, had promoted" (Mumford: 45). Yet, as Konvitz (1985: xiii) noted, cities have survived by adapting to the changes which their presence has precipitated and diffused. Jacobs (1984) believed that such changes are inevitable and that nations are dependent upon their cities for their strength and sustenance. She noted that cities provide group benefits and must continually adapt and compete if the state is to remain strong. Therein lies the conundrum, for in their attempt 'to make life better' for member citizens, cities have become harbingers and promoters of competition which ultimately creates stratified social hierarchy and internal competition as well. It is that sense of adaptation and competition which has driven most cities in their development and evolutionary process. That competition has taken a form of city self-interest, one that has tended to be dominated by functional responses to internal and external change rather than structural responses as espoused by Goracz et al (1971). It is a fact which cannot be ignored in any discussion about the city of the past, present, and future, and the associated politics of place and planning that has occurred alongside city development. Although unnamed as a profession until the late nineteenth century, city planning emerged in response to those issues of self-interest, particularly protection of city economic and military position and elite desire for urban amenities and political control of city building.  3.1.1.1 B e g i n n i n g s o f city p l a n n i n g  Lewis Mumford's classic book, The City in History (1961), provides an exceptional review of the relationship of city and quality of life concerns by its inhabitants. More importantly, Mumford set out a significant treatise describing the role of self-interest in the development and preservation of city life. That notion of self-interest is reflected in his proposition that the city 37  "is the product of an enormous mobilization of vitality, power, and wealth . . ." (Mumford: 56). Blumenfeld (1971: 10) pointed out that the determining factor in early city planning was premised upon the concern for allocation of land -"the art of land measuring" - to individuals, to the agora, to the public place; and to "persistence of form." Cities required careful consideration of locational decisions for religious and government institutions. Such design intent did not just happen but was purposefully shaped by the ruling elite; the harbingers of city planning.  For a period of some 5,000 years, cities remained relatively stable in size somewhere around 20,000 to 30,000 for the largest cities of 2,000 B.C. (Davis 1959: 59). While indicating that cities experienced densities of 120 to 200 people per acre, Mumford believed that the limiting factor for city size was availability of water or food, and range of collective communication systems. As cities increased in size, those items, along with ability to fortify, dominated decisions concerning appropriate city size. In time, however, the size of the city became more dependent upon reliable sources of water. Weinstein (1980: 41) noted that early civilisation in the Indus Valley and Punjab, dating back to 4000 B.C., was "well advanced in sanitary engineering and likely building code." Ward (1976: 12) went further by writing that:  Cities built three thousand years before European cities in the Middle Ages had as often as not better paved streets, more elaborate sewage systems, greater convenience in bathrooms and lavatories, larger monuments, and more elaborate city walls. Mohenjo-daro, built on the Indus River around 3500 B.C. is certainly no less elaborately laid out than, say sixteenth-century Paris. The 'containers' of civic life show extraordinary continuity. It appears that early urban humankind responded to city living by planning for the provision of selected public works, including those which served basic needs such as water supply, religion, and defence. The role of planning for city needs had taken root in the provision of infrastructure. In conjunction with that basic planning of services, decisions were also being made with regard to the allocation of resources to the powerful ruling class. Early planning was part of that allocation as it began to respond to the requirements and interests of the elite.  In an attempt to better understand the historical setting of the city, particularly the 'glory years,' many writers have returned to the cities of Greece where the polis and polity appear to have embraced democratic thinking. For instance, Bookchin (1989: 69) devoted considerable 38  discussion to that period when "classical Athens was historically unique, indeed unprecedented, in much of human history, because of the democratic forms it created, the extent to which they worked, and its faith in the competence of its citizens to manage public affairs." Even so, Bookchin (1989: 71) recognised that we cannot - nor should we want to- return to that period of "naive egalitarianism." Sennett (1990: xi) points out that "we could never recover the Greek past, even if we wished and we would not wish to; their city was founded on massive slavery."  Mumford (1961: 159) explored the evolution of the Greek city and the resultant effects upon the human spirit, focusing in particular upon the Hellenic period which produced, in his view, an organic and dynamic city life. It was a time when "work and leisure, theory and practice, private life and public life were in rhythmic interplay" (Mumford: 169). In short, " every part of the city had come to life in the person of the citizen" (Ibid). Yet, the definition of "citizen" did not include women and slaves. As Blumenfeld (1971: 9) put it "the Greeks . . . had no conception of the state or law as abstract powers differing from citizens and their decisions." During that period Athens exhibited concerns both for functionality, such as water supply that was both consistent and spring fed, and aesthetic, such as the orientation of buildings to human view. The Hellenic Greek cities appeared for several hundred years to be relatively stable in terms of health, democracy and size. "It was a community that was determined for its own good to remain small" (Mumford: 185). Therefore, their cities were planned to reflect a community of elite self-interest. As Mumford recognised, by glorifying itself, the polis could not adapt to new requirements -including the inclusion of women and slaves- and, as a result, the city refused to acknowledge the true spirit of the city as the focal point for "the enlargement in human consciousness of the drama of life itself (Mumford: 178). The planned city of Hellenic Greece, like so many other cities across time, had also failed to deliver an inclusive community.  The subsequent Hellenistic period further reduced the possibilities of the city becoming a new enlightened centre of human activity. The city became, like so many others before and after, a place for more domination, power, authority, and invariably self-interest. Although the later Hellenistic city was more sanitary and often more prosperous, -thanks in large measure to planning which responded to the needs of the time- it was, as Mumford pointed out, a city embodying a movement away from the ideals of the early polis by noting that "the city ceased 39  to be a stage for a significant drama in which everyone had a role, with lines to speak: it became, rather, a pompous show place for power" (Mumford: 196). City policy-making and planning played a major role in creating the physical environment within which that power could be showcased. During that time a new emphasis upon the provision of reliable and secure sources of water, especially during periods of war, and upon southern building orientation, as promoted by Aristotle, began to play a major role in city development. It was out of those concerns that citizens of Hellenistic Greece began to include health issues as part of city planning. From those concerns for overall health, Hippocratic medicine emerged. Although "the Hippocratic emphasis on air, water, soil, and situation did not gain an easy victory the maxims of the Hippocratic school were here at last consciously applied to town planning" (Mumford: 187). This early relationship of planning and public health should not go unnoticed. City policy-making -and its instrument city planning- had developed as a response to the desires of the powerful elite. But fulfilment of these desires also permitted an enlightened view of city life. Practical considerations of water supply and waste disposal benefited elite and common citizens alike. City planning although rooted in elite economic and political self-interest, also addressed the health interests of the entire population. This dual function would resurrect itself during subsequent centuries and, more particularly, in the late 1800s.  Weinstein (1980: 5) claimed that "the ancient Greeks and Romans made the greatest contributions to urban health." But Rome made those improvements to "benefit only (the) ruling elite" (Weinstein: 15). That shift away from the democracy -albeit limited- of the Greek cities, is described by Ward (1976: 17-19) as a shift from "the basis of democracy, the concept of the citizen's rights to live under -and be protected by- laws of his own making," to cities in which "greed could become abstract and hence unlimited" and "arrogance would feed on itself and make leaders all but literally drunk with power," placed city planning at the feet of the elite. Indeed, Mumford (1961: 172) termed ancient planners as "regimenters of human functions and urban space."  40  Odum (1964) explored the relationship of cities to society. He noted that 'civilization is urban, . . . civilization is technological, . . . civilization is intellectual, . . . civilization is concentration and power, [and] . . . civilization is artificial" (Odum: 226-227). He continued by declaring that, "in the modern world one of the most powerful of all trends has been toward centralization and the resulting political, economic and social phenomena of power" (Odum: 227). Further, Odum concluded that the great civilisations moved toward a dominant urban life in association with a centralisation of power which replaced popular sovereignty. He proceeded to identify a half-dozen internal and external weaknesses that contributed to the eventual demise of past civilisations. While city policy-making and planning did not contribute directly to that demise, both played a leading role in the transformation of the civilisation from an agricultural base to an urban lifestyle and corresponding ability to concentrate power. For instance, Odum pointed out, "civilization connotes more of the machine, the mass, and the class . . . civilization tends toward the intellectual, the organized, the technological, the  Utopian,  the mechanical" (Odum:  286). Blumenfeld (1971), Konvitz (1985: 1) and many others have described the fall of the city into a period of decline between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages. The European city began to emerge in its present form, "to represent civilization itself (Konvitz: 1) when the city changed its focus from one of self-protection and local commerce to one of external linkage and accessibility (Blumenfeld 1971: 22). B y the fourteenth century, many cities were emerging from the Middle Ages to address a variety of matters (see: Barnett 1986*). One major impetus focused upon public sanitation. For instance, London passed ordinances in 1309 to deal with sewage disposal. Milan passed statutes regulating cesspools and sewers. With the rise of the bubonic plague between 1348 and 1350, concerns for health became  •  Barnett (1986) has completed an interesting review of urban design during the past 500 years. He noted that "while some city designs have been based on Utopian expectations of social transformation, many were conceived as practical remedies to urban problems of their day . . . " (Barnett: 1). Although Barnett implied that most cities grew by random evolution during the Renaissance, Sennett (1990) suggested that planners were at work directing key aspects of city building throughout much of this period. Sennett believed that the resulting secular city, which was purposefully planned, separated citizens from the robust daily life of the city and has influenced our current attempt to divide the city into 'sanitised' zones.  41  a concern for citizens of cities, including the ruling elite who feared for their own lives, particularly in centres of population concentration. It was for that personal reason -rather than altruistic concerns for the quality of life of the masses- that health reform occurred. Blumenfeld (1971: 12) described the Renaissance city as a city of trade in which, "after 300 years" city planning "theory had caught up with practice." Once political power had been thus consolidated, economic privileges were obtained by individuals, not from the city, but from the prince; and they could be exercised, as a rule, anywhere in the realm. After the sixteenth century, accordingly, the cities that increased most rapidly in population and area and wealth were those that harbored a royal court: the fountainhead of economic power (Mumford 1961: 355). The symbiosis of economics, power, place, politics and planning has placed city planning at the centre of the contests of self-interest where planning has frequently ignored broad-based community issues in favour of elitist needs. As a result, city planning has traditionally provided the means -in the form of the physical arrangement and protection from internal and external pressures, and the aggrandisement of the existing system- for powerful interests to entrench and protect their status. That history deserves exposition so that the planning of the future city does not look to a romanticised past. That history may help us to understand the difficulty of present-day city planning to address broad community considerations. It may also help us to better understand the influence and tradition of the politics of place upon the practice of planning.  This section raises several questions about the nature of current planning practice. To what extent do practitioners see themselves constrained by the politics of place? Do they believe that their allocating resources alienates them from part of the community? Do they see a need for, and the possibility of, a more proactive role? In the face of their historical role, do they think that their work makes a difference? Chapter 4 will examine what practitioners think about those questions. Chapter 5 will discuss the implications of their thinking for the future of planning.  3.1.2 Nineteenth century city planning As cities became the centres for commercial trade and development in the late Middle Ages, their appetite for an increased hinterland began to create the need for formal and, eventually, 42  controlled lines of trade and supply. As a result, by the late eighteenth century, many city states had become nation states. The nation states were a powerful superstructure bent upon the acquisition of trade links for the assurance of a prosperous internal network of cities whose populations reflected the status and power of the state (e.g.. London 800,000 and Paris 700,000). With the continued accumulation of power, the nation state was able to afford 'prosperity' for residents of cities, particularly those within Great Britain whose navies dominated the commerce lanes of the oceans. For instance, The City of Manchester, which contained a burgeoning textile trade, grew from a population of 155,000 in 1821 to 228,000 by 1831. Reflecting upon that period, Bookchin (1987: 2) has written: Somewhere in the bowels of the Enlightenment and the Victorian era that followed it, ethical approaches to freedom, self-consciousness, and harmony began to give way to appeals for a 'scientific', presumably 'materialist', approach to a social reality grounded in egotism and the picture of a self-serving, indeed, avaricious human nature. It was during this period, that the need for sanctuary from the evils of the Industrial Revolution took shape. " 'Home' became the secular version of spiritual refuge; the geography of safety shifted from a sanctuary in the urban center to the domestic interior" (Sennett: 21). The home became the retreat from the crime, filth, and despair of the street. This attempt to separate the home from the activity of the city around it has contributed to the isolation of city life and residence today. City planners have assisted that isolation by promoting increased separation of city spaces. Konvitz (1985: 100) called the nineteenth century a period of "utilitarian structures . . . elaborated without regard to anything except efficient and economic construction and use." With that focus came the well documented ills of an expanded urban poor, underfed, under housed and underpaid while living amidst squalor, human waste and disease (see: Hall 1988 and Mumford 1961). That concern for efficiency in the early 1800s "prevented all but the radical fringe from considering any fundamental restructuring of society or redistribution of wealth as a means of treating social and environmental problems. . . . As a result, little was done to reform municipal politics or the relationship between cities and states during the early phases of 43  industrial, urban growth" (Konvitz: 100). The urban poor could not possibly muster support themselves and where they had tried, such as in the Paris Commune of 1871, they were soundly defeated and demoralised (Castells 1983). Cities remained as places where the strongest self-interests contested for and ultimately controlled the agenda; an agenda that city planners were expected to help implement. With the focus upon profit in the mid-1800s came the well documented ills of an expanded urban poor. Blumenfeld (1971: 15) wrote: cities begin to lose their age-old distinctive character as seats of the privileged. Industrial villages have grown into communities containing more inhabitants than many of the most famous ancient cities ever had. The old difference between town and countryside is beginning to disappear, and a new unit of human settlement is emerging: the industrial region. The shift in numbers of poor from the countryside of the nation to the cities did not result immediately in any concomitant shift in the power base. It would take until the next century for the working class to emerge as a new effective self-interest: including the self-interest of housing and the associated urban health agenda. The city elite continued to direct city growth and associated planning and health toward their own goals and self-interests. For the time being, because much of nineteenth century planning remained a bastion of maintenance of order and elite self-interest, the urban poor could not influence the course of their quality of life, as wretched as it was. "Ideas and techniques in city building did not evolve as rapidly as the economic, demographic, and social aspects of urbanization " (Konvitz: 101). In particular, England and France were experiencing considerable strain and stress during the mid-1800s as urban centres expanded far beyond their capacity to absorb additional labour supply (Hall 1988). It was this encumbrance upon the ability of cities to provide an adequate workforce that led governments to impose regulations for the provision of basic public health amenities, including water and sewage and garbage collection. Such acts were done as much to protect the elite from the ravages of disease as to ensure a source of cheap labour (Weinstein 1980). For instance, in England over a forty year period during the early 1800s, 400,000 people had died from an outbreak of Asian cholera. It is no wonder that the urban elite; who lived 44  nearby the urban poor, could tolerate inaction no more. In order to respond to one such crisis, a select committee of the Parliament of Great Britain was commissioned in 1840 to report on the Health of Towns. Following that event, Ward (1976: 34) noted, "the counter-visions were beginning to appear." She went on to describe the appalling conditions of industrial England revealed  in that committee's government publication entitled Sanitary Condition of the  Laborinfi Population of Great Britain. That report, the associated work of Edwin Chadwick who identified a cause and effect relationship between the location of high disease incidence and urban poor housing, and the rise of urban diseases amongst all residents led to the passing of the first Public Health Act in 1848 (Weinstein 1980). The Act was one of the first modern urban planning policies to begin to regulate city development by requiring that all new housing be connected to sewer mains and that all cities with evidence of high incidence of disease be required to establish a public health department. Such action, however, was directed by the desperate needs of the ruling elite and their concern for their own well-being not as enlightened public policy (Hall 1988). Town planners of the day were mandated to implement the projects which protected the integrity of the state. "The active force that finally provided the major cities with the heroic sewerage and water systems of the late nineteenth century was not human wisdom but repeated onslaughts of typhoid and cholera" (Ward 1976: 36). She also noted that town planners took on the task of ensuring that utilitarian functions, which reduced incidence of disease and addressed elite interests, were designed and implemented in a fashion reminiscent of the cities of the Roman Empire. In France, things were no different. For instance, in Paris, Baron Georges-Eugene Haussmann, appointed by Napoleon III, was responsible for the planning and development of major water and sewer works. Haussmann's mandate was to bring sanitation and 'urban order' to Paris and, in so doing, to maintain Paris as an important commercial centre. His work was based upon the monumental city-design principles that had been evolving since the Renaissance (Barnett  45  1986: 26). Mumford described Haussmann as a 'regimenter*'. Using some of the first concepts of urban renewal, he razed slums and replaced wooden structures with brick. While impressive in its scope, Haussmann's efforts ignored the plight of the urban poor of Paris in favour of devoting "his professional life to Genevaizing it, and any other city that had the impertinence to be unruly" (Hall 1988: 204). While the extent of early industrialisation in Canada was at a significantly reduced scale compared to Britain and France, there was an increasing problem with the ramifications of city growth in support of industrial activity. As a result, Moscovitch (1983: iii) noted, "the spread of contagious disease occasioned first temporary and then permanent provincial public health laws and municipal bylaws." Canada was entering the world of municipal decision-making which moved beyond simply housekeeping issues to matters of substance such as urban health. Like the centres of Europe, however, urban quality of life would continue to be subject to social status, economic well-being, power and the politics of place. Planning was one means of fulfilling the desires of the ruling class.  In Britain and France, the purely industrial cities tended to exacerbate differences in quality of life as functions of income and opportunity. " A central symptom of drawing apart was the suburb" (Ward 1976: 37). Those newly emerging residential areas represented the first significant isolation of housing away from the noise and pollution of the industrial areas which were often scattered throughout the mid-nineteenth century cities of Britain. Those suburbs "represented a deep and widespread desire for cleanliness, greenery, fresh air, and a basic garden" (Ward: 38). Although an important antidote for the time, those locations were available only to the upper and middle classes. The urban poor "stayed close to the squalors and friction of the industrial sectors or moved into the rundown inner ring of first-generation suburbs from which the genteel had already departed" (Ward: 38).  * Haussmann was criticised during that period by Camillo Sitte (City Building According to Artistic Principles 1889). Instead of emphasising the dramatic effect of the Haussmann's long avenue, Sitte brought attention to the enclosure of space and appropriate scales. This focus upon enclosure and irregular spaces and winding streets provided grist for the subsequent Garden City movement (Barnett: 33). 46  A review of the evidence conveys an image of a complicated intermeshing of elite self-interest and provision of the basic necessities of life for the urban poor. In Great Britain and France, the chief cause for initial change in urban development appears to have been the basic recognition that cities would collapse under the strain of overcrowding and lack of sanitary water and sewage infrastructure. That concern for maintaining the fundamental operation of cities as engines of economic efficiency had more to do with protecting business interests rather than addressing worker issues. That does not mean that business interest ignored the plight of workers, but that business needed to be concerned about its labour pool before it would take action. Such vested interest has marked much of the subsequent neo-Marxist debate concerning the development of urban public policy and planning. Castells (1983), a neo-Marxist, has concluded that "class analysis is an insufficient approach to the understanding of urban change throughout history" (Castells: 4). Instead, he stated that it is the basic protection of things favouring capitalism which deserves attention. Mumford (1961) claimed that capitalism has resulted in the dismantling of the whole structure of urban life and "place(d) it upon a new impersonal basis: money and profit" (Mumford: 416). Such activity was associated with industrialisation "which ushered in the urbanization of much of the world" (Pohlman 1986: 20). Through the first half of the nineteenth century, city planners were concerned about providing support for those engines of commerce. Broader social agenda issues were not open for debate or resolution. It is during this period that "the power of self-interest, whether we choose to call it 'class interest' or 'private interest', becomes so much a part of the received wisdom of our period that it unconsciously shapes all our ideological premises" (Bookchin 1987: 3).  Quite simply, early action was driven by the concerns of the elite about maintaining a workforce and about the urban poor contaminating the well-to-do through the every day contact that of necessity occurred in urban England and France. It became obvious to urban decision-makers that, without adequate public health standards in the major cities, the urban elite might very well flee the city and with that flight take with them future investment opportunities. As a result, public intervention, through urban planning, was undertaken in the belief that public investment in infrastructure would increase concomitant long term private investment. As Weinstein (1980 :21) noted, "sickness was expensive." Therefore, the first attempts to restructure city government came in response to the need to control, direct and provide safe basic health 47  services such as potable water and sewage collection. Both of these utilities, however, were allocated on a selected basis depending upon status (Hall 1988). With the turn of the century, the forces of urban politics had taken on similar forms in North America and Europe. That is, the need for reform became acute on both sides of the Atlantic as cities continued to grow rapidly in response to the expansion of capitalism. Whether in the tenement houses of Chicago, New York, Paris, or London, life remained an unending series of challenges and poverty. Hall (1988), who completed detailed searches for primary sources from that time, captures the challenge of that period in very vivid terms. Quoting W.T. Stead -editor of the London Pall Mall Gazette in 1883-, Hall noted, "the horrors of the slums represent the one great domestic problem which religion, the humanity, and the statesmanship of England are imperatively summoned to solve" (Hall: 15).  While the squalor finally became a cause celebre, the ruling elite in many of the major cities continued to focus upon their own self-interest as the driving force for change (Hall 1988: 19). Also, Hall pointed out local government was unwilling to use its available powers to intercede (Hall: 23). Finally, the elites came to fear for the very foundations of society as the potential for political turmoil during the turn of the century became more than isolated incidents of worker dissatisfaction* (Hall 1988 and Castells 1983). In response to that  threat of anarchy, the  politicians of the day became convinced that sound business judgements would require that local government and associated urban policy and planning become more interventionist. Local governments began to organise fire departments to fight the disastrous conflagrations which swept several major cities destroying businesses as well as worker housing. In addition, building codes were established to avoid future potential costly fires. Major sewer and water works and electrification programmes were planned and built in an organised and significant fashion by local government. To facilitate such activity, it became necessary to create a public administration. Where possible, however, private initiative, such as rail transit, was encouraged  * At the same time, the state was concerned that the Nation's population was in such deplorable health that Great Britain could not mount an effective army. For instance, during the Boer War, politicians raised concerns about the threat to the nation if the population's general health was not improved and efforts were not made to ensure a supply of healthy men suitable for combat.  48  to reduce the responsibility upon local government. Nineteenth century industrial England ended with a Victorian flavour for profit and a belief in individualism and liberalism, albeit amidst a growing belief (and increasing altruism) in selected state intervention to assist the poor. The Canadian experience was one that blended the English model of selected state intervention and the American intensive capitalist model. Taylor (1986) concluded that, at the turn of the century, Canadian local government had considerable autonomy to undertake local policy initiatives. Senior governments had granted "by the late  eighteenth and early nineteenth  centuries . . . major centres the legal and financial authority and instruments to pursue their own interests and generally adopted a permissive approach to their activities" (Taylor 1986: 270). Taylor also noted that local autonomy was very short lived because senior government sought to manage the economic affairs of the nation. As a result, while Canadian urban policy and planning remained largely in the hands of the business elite, Moscovitch (1983) felt that "the period of the 1890s constituted the first step in the transition phase towards a welfare state" (Moscovitch: iii). There was now finally an opportunity for a new agenda that moved away from narrow self-interest to a broader concern for city-wide well-being. City planners took notice and responded to the emerging concerns for health and quality of life. That period brought a new excitement and sense of purpose to city planning. It did so to such an extent that a new profession, town planning, was identified as a separate professional grouping which emerged amidst the call for a new constructive intervention in the affairs of the city. Although participants in a new approach to urban development, town planners of the turn of the century were still very much part of the political process and decision-making. They remained part of the internal decision 'loop' which was dominated by narrow class politics.  The history of the city reviewed in this section raises several questions about the nature of current planning practice in relation to the planners' roles in the nineteenth century. Do planners see their tradition of planning as a utilitarian -one which responds to functional needs- or as a redistributive one? What do they think of this tradition and the implications for today's profession? Chapter 4 will explore the views planners have of their traditions.  49  3.1.3 The urban reform period of city planning By the early 1900s, the disparity that was evident between the urban working classes, and the business elite and growing middle class moved the concern for traditional fears for health and safety to "welcomed alliances between social and political reformers to change laws, set standards, and accelerate the momentum of change" so as to "allow urban civilization to emerge from the social poison of the tenement and ghetto, from the political jungle of self-serving, powerful factions, and from the cultural darkness of academic formulas and tradition" (Konvitz: 151). Even so, the product of those new associations was still a system of power that remained largely intact, as Castells (1983), Friedmann (1987), Yates (1977) and others have pointed out. Castells (1983) postulated that many urban issues are consumption driven. In an analysis of the Glasgow Rent Strike of 1915, Castells (1983: 34) identified a typical consumption issue which "showed potential for combining production-based struggles and consumption-oriented issues in a comprehensive social movement." For the first time in history, a major urban struggle could be won by the popular masses and still reinforce the rationality of the system without fundamentally challenging the interests of the dominant class. Urban issues had become a secondary contradiction in the structure of society and in the politics of the state (Castells: 37). That experience could not go unnoticed by the town planners of the time, especially those who were so newly emerging as a specific group with increasingly specific tasks. In general, Castells' position is that the elite undertook change to meet their own self-interest. They did so by establishing -through the development of new local government policies- new rules which controlled the growth of undesirable elements of the city; by intervening -through the use of selective town planning- in the delivery of basic services; and by remoulding local government administration -through the creation of town planning offices- to address those  50  service requirements. Such changes were seen as both necessary to perpetuate the capitalist *  system and to placate the growing mobilisation of the working class . Change during this period was driven primarily by the self-interest on the part of both the ruling elite and the disadvantaged, this period demonstrates that coalitions of divergent urban interests are possible. Urban action delivered a modicum of benefits to the poor -in the form of better housing- and significant benefits to the wealthy -in the form of profit and a reasonably stable workforce- while basically maintaining the status quo. In Pohlman's (1986: 52) words, "the political machine clearly operated on the principle of divisible benefits." Such policy has had a history of being both non-threatening (to elite status) and benign (to working poor). The potential, at that time at least, to combine those two divergent interests and the role of city planners in assisting in the creation of acceptable non-threatening options bears noting.  3.1.3.1 T h e s o c i a l r e f o r m e r s  By the end of the nineteenth century, new ways of planning for the continued urbanisation of Europe took shape. For instance, out of the initial concerns for housing and some of the first scientific studies linking poor urban health and unsanitary conditions came progressive housing  movements. Two individuals are particularly well known for their influence on planning at the time: Patrick Geddes and Ebenezer Howard. Howard led the "The Garden City Movement." Hall (1988: 87) provides an excellent summary of that movement and the impact it had upon city planning. He wrote, "Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928) is the most important single character in this entire tale. So it is important to get him right; even though almost everyone has got him wrong." "Most mistakenly of all, they see him as a physical planner, ignoring the fact that his garden cities were merely the vehicles for a  * While Castells is cynical about that period, others suggest that there was considerable accommodation of working class interests through the increased positive intervention of the state (Hall 1988). 51  progressive reconstruction of capitalist society into an infinity of co-operative commonwealths" (Ibid). Howard was thus advocating nothing less than the total reorganization of the entire country as something quite feasible and practical, in fact, almost inevitable. His belief in the possibility of immediate constructive change was distinctly un-English: it was the confidence bom of life on the American frontier (Barnett 1986: 66). The garden city movement gathered strength in Britain and became articulated in the new town development that was so prominent from the 1890s until World War II. Within Canada only a few modified examples exist as testament to that movement. Even so, those that were completed, such as Kapukasing and Temiskaming, continue to intrigue modem planners. Thus, while the garden city movement spoke of a new opportunity for city planning to break with tradition, new forces, such as the automobile, emerged to stimulate other forms of development. Even in Great Britain the products which followed Howard's original vision and Raymond Unwin's translation into the garden suburb became "universally derided and condemned" (Hall 1988: 79) because the housing products and layouts became design disasters, promoting uniformity over all else. The planning profession came under attack for its role in that effort. As Hall noted "whether it was sour grapes or not, the architects were angry; they wanted revenge" (Hall: 80). They took it in their adoption and promotion of Corbusian towers scattered amidst open space . In parallel with the Garden City Movement, the City Beautiful was promoted primarily in North America as an alternative method of addressing urban ills. The city beautiful proponents were primarily architects and planners who looked to the nineteenth-century boulevards and promenades of the great European capitals for inspiration.  City Beautiful was criticised by  The Corbusian period of city building is derided by Hall with passion as one that would form the basis of a narrow physical development trend until the 1960s in Canada, the United States, and Britain.  52  many, including Dr. Charles Hodgetts* of the Commission of Conservation (Commission of Conservation Annual Report 1911). Hodgetts believed that the city beautiful could not solve endemic problems of poverty, slums, or housing. It was devoid of a strong theoretical base. Worse, it displayed little methodological sensitivity to the social and ecological principles which Howard had promoted. But, the City Beautiful offered a comfortable place for urban designers and planners to initiate superficial change that would not disrupt the status quo. Patrick Geddes initiated considerable discussion about a "new social science" (Geddes 1915: 2). He wrote, "towns must now cease to spread like expanding inkstains ands grease-spots" (Geddes: 97). He promoted a "Survey of Cities" which must take in all aspects, contemporary as well as historic. It must be geographic, and economic, anthropological and historical, demographic and eugenic, and so: above all, it aims towards the reunion of all these studies, in terms of social science, as 'Civics'. (Geddes: 266). Few planners took up Geddes' call for a comprehensive approach to urban problem solving. One student, however, of Geddes, Thomas Adams, would come to Canada to promote a more holistic view of planning. Adams' work and its associated influence upon Canadian planning is reviewed below. 3.1.3.2 U r b a n r e f o r m : the C a n a d i a n e x p e r i e n c e  Canadian community planning was rooted in the four movements that Hodge (1991) has identified: health, housing, conservation, and civic reform. Each was undertaken in a rational and articulated manner that did little to disrupt the politics of the day. The health movement played a major role in shaping the planning movement because it was the Committee of Health under the Commission of Conservation which developed the initial programmes in the first decade of this century that formed the basis for the planning legislation in Canada and more importantly, the recruitment of Thomas Adams as Canada's first professional planner.  *The chief champion of the new view of urban health was Dr. C. Hodgetts, appointed as Advisor on Public Health to the Commission of Conservation in 1909. Although he served the Commission only until 1915, Dr. Hodgetts was able to arouse support and recognition for the need to provide better housing conditions and eventually better planning throughout Canada, "for he felt that town planning was an inevitable evolution of the concern for better urban health standards" (Smith and Witty 1970: 65). 53  While some modern Canadian planning literature has acknowledged its historical roots in the work of Thomas Adams (Stein 1994), planning literature and practice does not appear to have built upon that work or the radical turn of the century planners, such as Geddes and Howard, who promoted broader social and environmental issues (Gerecke 1991). For instance, Friedmann (1987) makes no reference to Adams, Geddes or Howard. Although Adams and the Commission of Conservation, which was created at the beginning of this century by the federal government to address the variety of urban, rural and resource issues facing Canadian society, established a firm foundation for Canadian planning, many Canadian planners have continued to question their professional roots and role in society. It is a search for an identity and sense of worth that continues to elude many practising planners (see: Mathur, and Gerecke and Reid Plan Canada 1991: 31:6). Except for a few urban historians, the important role played by Adams has largely been lost upon Canadians.* Thomas Adams had a profound affect upon Canadian planning. The British Town Planning Review lamented the loss of Adams to British planning when it said, "no planner, or more correctly, Regional-planner, has shown such a philosophical grasp of the whole situation and its many ramifications" (Town Planning Review 1916: 271). It went so far as to say, "we cannot help feeling a certain resentment towards Canada for having robbed us of the man who is justly looked up to as the head of the profession in this country" (Ibid.). This during a time when Adams' mentor, Patrick Geddes, was a prominent practitioner and educator! Unlike Geddes, however, Adams reflected a more pragmatic view; one that would eventually bend to the political and economic pressures of the time. As this review will show, it was a compromise that would be criticised by his contemporaries such as Mumford and by modern day scholars.  * The reasons include a dearth of Canadian specific planning literature, the concern of modem planning academics for the disdain that Mumford held of Adams' work on the New York Regional Plan, and Adams own exclusion of his Canadian experience from his memoirs for reasons that relate to his fractious dismissal. Peter Hall is also remiss in avoiding any substantive discussion of the influence of Thomas Adams upon British planning. It is a serious oversight in Hall's otherwise thorough book, Cities of Tomorrow.  54  Gunton(1981: 104) wrote the following of Adams: In hiring Adams, the Canadian government could not have found a planner that better typified British planning sentiments. For Adams, the objectives of planning were three fold: efficiency, health and amenity. To achieve these objectives it was necessary to expand the sphere of planning to include virtually all aspects of urban life, especially those of health and housing. As a proponent of the Garden City movement  and Secretary of the First Garden City  Company of Letchworth England, Adams was an "eloquent author and speaker on the Garden City Movement, on agricultural land use and town planning and housing as aspects of local government" (Armstrong 1968: 28). Prior to Adams arrival the Committee of Health had only begun to examine planning issues. Under his direction, however, the Committee of Health broadened its mandate to include: (1) Consideration and investigation of the twin subjects of town planning and housing as a special Canadian problem, regard being had to the experience of other countries. (2) Consideration of the questions of remedying and altering existing bad conditions in towns and cities and the best methods of avoiding the repetition of these conditions in the future. Both remedial and preventive measures have to be devised and incorporated in draft legislation. (3) Further consideration of the draft Town Planning Act, in conference with provincial and municipal authorities, especially in regard to the kind of provincial and municipal machinery required for its administration. (4) Preparation of a new Housing Act as a model for provincial legislatures after further investigation into housing conditions. (5) In connection with the above matters visits will require to be made to the different provinces and many of the cities in the Dominion to discuss points which have to be considered in regard to their local or provincial application. (6) Advice will be given to municipalities and owners of land with respect to town planning and housing, and in that connection a collection is being made of literature, maps, photographs, and slides so that these could be placed at the disposal of those able to make use of them" (Commission of Conservation 1915: 163). While that work of the Commission is reflective of Adams direction and interests, it is in his book entitled, Rural Planning and Development (1917), that Adams presents his philosophy. That publication has been called a "comprehensive analysis of present and future Canadian 55  development trends" (Smith and Witty: 68). In that work, he stressed the importance of balancing social and environmental quality with economic gain. To Adams (1917: 1-2), "the question is not whether we grow but how we will grow . . . National prosperity depends on the character, stability, freedom and efficiency of the human resources of a nation, rather than on the amount of its exports or the gold it may have to its credit." He defined as the goal of planning, "the proper development of land for the purpose of securing the best results from the application of human activity to natural resources." New town planning in brief includes the consideration of every aspect of civic life and civic growth. There is nothing in the development of the city which does not come under the purview of town planning properly understood. And the essence of town planning as the essence of city life, is the safeguarding of the health of the community and the provision of proper homes for the people. On that basis we have to build up the whole of our theory and practice on the subject (Gunton 1981 citing Adams speech to the 6th Annual Planning Conference: 105). As Gunton (1981: 115) continued to note, "his approach to planning combined the goals of equity with those of efficiency and required a fundamental expansion of government powers particularly in areas such as the construction of workers housing, the elimination of slums, the building of new towns to decentralize urban growth and to revitalize rural areas and in controls on land development including public land banking and taxation to collect the 'unearned increment'." Adams appeared to have support from the dominant liberal elements of municipal government. During the time that the Town Planning Act was being examined, the Committee of Health, through the Town Planning Branch, suggested that basic steps should be undertaken at the municipal level to ensure that pending legislation and proposals would be functional. These steps included: (1) a survey to determine existing sociological and physical conditions, (2) obtaining authority to control the area during preparation of a scheme, and (3) mapping existing land uses. At the same time, the Committee stressed the need for municipalities to consider nature and aesthetics as a basic component of successful town planning. That broad perspective of planning was a chief reflection of Adams' philosophy.  56  As Hodge (1991: 94) stated, Thomas Adams "did the most to establish the substance and credibility of the professional side of planning in the first quarter of the 20th century." But Gerecke (1977: 151) cautioned by noting that Adams was later criticised by Mumford for work on the New York State Regional Plan in which Gerecke believed "his conservatism kept him from being a truly great planner."* While that criticism is directed to a post-Canada Adams, nevertheless, Gerecke raises it to confirm his own views of the Canadian version of Adams. It appears to be an unnecessary burden on a pioneer of the Canadian liberal interventionist approach to planning who advocated intersectoral linkages between public health and planning and comprehensive approaches to town, rural and resource planning. For, while there can be no doubt that Adams was pragmatic, there also can be no doubt of the sheer immensity of his legacy in the field of Canadian planning theory, legislation, and practice and the resolution of significant urban health problems. Yet, despite Adams' influence upon Canadian planning practice, the prominent Canadian planning theorist, Kent Gerecke (1971), gave Adams little credit. Instead, he criticised Adams' work and liberal tendencies. Adams was simply not radical enough for Gerecke.  But, Gerecke did admit that Canadian planning was affected by Adams who "planted seeds of planning across the country" and whose "selective, borrowed planning he brought to Canada carried on until the Depression" (Gerecke 1971: 151). That liberal urban health-based approach would mark Canadian planning in a significant way. It would leave a legacy of selected intervention in quality of life attributes in the spirit of the British planning school. But, it would not advocate broad significant social radicalisation. As a result, the heritage of Canadian planning is one that took hold in the public health movement of the time and matured as a profession of compromise between the ideal world of Geddes, the enlightened concerns of the Commission of Conservation as advocated by Adams, and the demands of a capitalist system. As  Gerecke (1977: 151)has pointed out, the work of the Commission was a blending of  experiences:  For a more detailed record of that criticism and Adams' rebuttal see: Sussman, C , Planning the Fourth Migration (Cambridge: MIT Press), 1976.  57  In the Canadian tradition, Hodgetts* and Adams did their planning by selectively borrowing from British and American experience. From Britain they followed the public health movement. They showed only slight interest in the garden city movement. . . . From the U.S. they borrowed the legalistic approach, the technique of land-use, particularly zoning, while paying little attention to the city beautiful movement. Thus, the history of Canadian planning from its earliest beginnings appears to be one of balancing conservation with the reality of market forces. For instance Sifton, to whom both Hodgetts and Adams reported, said this of that balance: If we attempt to stand in the way of development our efforts will assuredly be of no avail, either to stop development or to promote conservation. It will not, however, be hard to show that the best and most highly economic development and exploitation in the interests of the people can only take place by having regard to the principles of conservation (Commission of Conservation 1910: 6). As Smith and Witty (1970: 61) noted, "Conservation, then, to Sifton was a tool to ensure that the economic development of Canada's natural resources be conducted in a manner whereby the greatest possible benefits accrued to the Canadian people." That philosophy dominated the work of the Commission and its attendant Committees, including the Committee of Health. Hodge (1994: 95) has confirmed that view by noting that "Thomas Adams espoused a view similar to those of the 19th-century utilitarian reformers." Gunton (1981: 44) traced three broad responses (agrarian radicalism, urban radicalism, and urban liberalism) to the need for urban reform. Radicalism was rejected in favour of urban liberalism which had a: commitment to preserving dominant capital institutions of private property, the market, a restricted role for government, and the primacy of the individual. But unlike more conservative elements in Canadian society, the urban liberals did accept the need for reform (Gunton 1981: 44). The urban liberals came to dominate Canadian reform well before Thomas Adams was influential in setting Canada on a course of professional planning. That period applied  'According to Hodgetts, the primary resource was a nation's people -healthy people. It was from those ideas that the Standing Committee on Public Health became concerned with urban living and associated problems. As a result the Committee recommended that a Congress of Housing be held in Ottawa and that Thomas Adams an eminent British planner be invited to attend such a gathering. While the Committee did not successfully recruit Adams to speak until the Sixth National Planning Conference held in Toronto in 1914, it had continued to recognise the importance of linking planning with health. Therefore, by the time Adams was offered the post of Adviser of Town Planning to the Commission, Canada was ready to address city planning in a holistic way with particular concern for urban health questions. 58  "scientific business principles to municipal management.... Sweeping social changes were not necessary" (Gunton 1981: 45-46). "Urban liberals were reluctantly drawn into pushing for more and more fundamental reforms as the urban problems intensified. . . . Planning, it seemed, was the one thing that appeared capable of overcoming the deep ideological conflicts between the agrarian radicals, the urban liberals, and the urban radicals" (Gunton 1981: 62-74). Adams appeared to have support from all three groups. That support or coalition of concepts as espoused through the work of Adams has had considerable impact upon the liberal traditions of Canadian planning and the utilitarianism of planning.  While much of the credit for developing a planning profession in Canada can be attributed to Thomas Adams, there were other events which helped to reinforce the role of planning. Gerecke has called the period, 1909-1931, the formal stage of Canadian planning. His review of that period, however, reveals little in the way of planning product. Wolfe (1994) confirms that view, but does note that there were three major initiatives during that period which helped to shape Canada: the infrastructure works of the depression; the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act; and the League for Social Reconstruction. After 1930, the concerted and comprehensive processes espoused by Adams and Hodgetts generally became a thing of the past as governments fought the ravages of the depression.  The energy which appears to have been prevalent in community planning at the turn of the century quickly disappeared in Canada. For the most part, the reasons lie just below the surface of government shortsightedness, protection of self-interests, and financial concerns. Quite simply, the major impetus for broad co-ordinated responses to environmental and social ills was  59  emanating from the Commission of Conservation*. It was a guiding light in a sea of provincial and municipal indifference. With the demise of active involvement of the Commission in town planning, it fell to the provinces and municipalities to continue the interventionist planning begun by Adams and Hodgetts. "But these lower levels of government were either unwilling or unable to shoulder this additional responsibility. As a result, Canadian planning withered" (Gunton 1981: 161). It was a period which left Adams with disdain and a rejection of his nine years in Canada. Gunton (1981: 161) wrote of Adams leaving: "consequently, Canadian planning theory began to shift from comprehensive planning to a more passive managerial approach geared to the interests of the business community."  The social reform period provides a rich ground for examining the comprehensive processes as epitomised by Thomas Adams and current day planning in Canada. Do Canadian planners identify with a tradition? Do they think that Canadian planning has a tradition? Do they believe that planning is, should be, can be a comprehensive process or rational process? Such questions are reviewed in the context of planning practitioners responses examined in Chapter 4.  3.1.4 Planning after Thomas Adams In the 1900s, as the complexity of cities continued to increase due to additional technological change and invention, such as the automobile and elevator, the requirements for concomitant  * The Commission had gained enemies in its broad foray into provincial affairs. Armstrong (1968: 32) noted this when he wrote that "a number of post-war (1918) decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London had underscored the general feeling that it was time to cut the Federal Government down to size." In 1919, as an agent of the Federal Government, the value of the Commission was becoming an increased topic of conversation. That led to discussions about federal commitment. For instance "Adams in 1919 seemed to sense that the steam was going out of federal leadership in the town planning field" (Armstrong 1968: 32). Sir Clifford Sifton retired that same year after 10 years as Commission Chair. By now the Commission was under attack. As Armstrong commented, "the heroic developmental period requiring Federal Government financing or guarantees was also past for the time being, and the leaders of the business world were thus less interested in the Federal Government's help and ideas " (Ibid). In May of 1921, Prime Minister Meighen introduced a bill to repeal the Commission of Conservation Act amid less than complementary comments. It was the end of a period of enlightenment in Canadian planning. As Gunton (1981: 152) confirmed, "the end of the Commission was a serious setback to Canadian planners." While the Commission had laid much of the ground work for provincial action in town planning, environmental regulation, and public health, the provincial governments did not follow up with the vigour that Adams and Hodgetts had hoped. 60  modification of urban policy and planning that was both non-threatening and benign at the very least and progressive at best, came into sharper focus. The Great Depression, in particular caused planning to take on a role of managing economic growth and, following the Second World War, a role of stimulating growth through the provision of services.  3.1.4.1 1920s to 1960s  Grant (1994: 100) notes, "with the most severe problems corrected by the mid-1920s, however, planning entered a hiatus. Municipal politicians quickly adopted zoning to control land development and land values, but dismissed planning as unrealistic and unnecessary." Between 1930 and 1960, the field of planning at the practical level avoided the significant debates about social equity. It was a planning history with few deep roots and even fewer products. The previous concern by planners for integrated approaches to problem solving was replaced by a focus upon functionalism. As Gunton (1981: 162) pointed out "planners were being forced to more explicitly choose sides and the side they were choosing was urban liberalism" . . . "with [its] emphasis on efficiency and the protection of property rights." Planning sought a narrower focus and discipline fragmentation and isolation took hold. Gerecke (1977) has pointed to this period as one where planning began to retrench, eventually entering a dormant period by the early 1930's. Carver (1975: 115) also concluded that the 1930s was a vacuum period in Canadian planning when "community planning, as a process . . . virtually didn't exist." Carver also pointed out that there were practically no Canadians who had any professional training in community design and no courses in community planning. In contrast, Gerecke (1977) noted the '30s represented a period of foundation for British and American planning. For instance, in the United States the Regional Planning Association published a wealth of challenging new planning thought. That the Canadian barren planning landscape would not regenerate until well after the Second World War, illustrates the inability of planners to address any substantive issues, including matters of quality of life and the comprehensiveness espoused by Adams and others during the second decade of the century.  Comprehensiveness and concerns for broader agendas would have to wait for another time. Planners had returned to a narrower interpretation of their role in the life of the city. It was a 61  role that, for reasons of comfort and weak positioning as a profession, failed to challenge the inequities of the society. The emphasis upon physical concerns began to be briefly transformed into enlightened social process approaches under Howard and Geddes, only to be replaced by a very narrow urban design perspective in the 1920s. Unfortunately, the emphasis upon narrow design solutions, over the broader comprehensive approaches of Adams, may have formed a lasting impression upon the practice of planning. Practitioners should be queried to determine their views of planning as a comprehensive process.  Following World War II, planning efforts seem to have been undertaken to accommodate the growth demands of a dynamically expanding urban Canada. Gunton (1981: 19) confirmed that view. As a result, the emphasis upon services and physical design between thel920's and 1950's was a serious impediment to the development of more rounded processes. That narrow track of physical design led to a sterile planning practice. It would remain so until the 1960s. Thus, Canadian planning has not been imbued with a lengthy or consistent tradition of urban reform. Instead, it has been affected by a tradition of comprehensive planning and urban reform in the first two decades of the nineteenth century. Although only a brief period in the history of Canadian planning, those first twenty years of this century have not received significant recognition from Canadian planning theorists and when that period has often been discussed the work of Adams has been discounted as ignoring the radical heritage of Geddes. Further, the forty years following Adams were largely devoid of any significant planning products or tradition. During the period 1930 to 1960, planning had been abandoned in many places and had retrenched where it was practised. That lack of a strong Canadian planning tradition may be one of the reasons that Canadian planners have continued to search for an identity (see: Mathur in Plan Canada 31:6, 1991).  In Canada during that period, business interests retained a strong affinity for their local community, believing that what was good for their business interests was also good for the city (Sancton 1986).  Therefore, within the narrower business imperative of city 'boosterism,' business elites attempted to re-order urban politics and policy (and, therefore, planning) so that the city would 62  provide a fertile ground for the growth of business (Plunkett and Betts 1978 and Artibise 1982). As Artibise (1982: 37) noted, "there were few restrictions on civic boosters in this era." The inclusion of popular democratic control of local governments "were resisted in most jurisdictions until well after the Second World War" (Taylor 1986: 272). As employees of such administrations, town planners became avid boosters as well. That boosterism had more to do with the promotion of business interests than the promotion of sound urban planning for the entire city population. The development and application of land use zoning and its associated segregation of elite residential areas from other uses illustrates the concern to protect elite self-interest. Such functional town planning was very much at the centre of the politics of place. With the recognition that urban form was changing dramatically at the turn of the century and that future change would very likely accelerate, the coalition of business interests moved to initiate substantial restructuring of the decision-making apparatus and associated role of land use planning of local government. It did so by reorganising city structures into a more business-like model wherein the city administration would be established on corporate lines with a chief executive officer (i.e. chief administrator), separation of select services from politics (i.e. independently appointed commissions and line departments such as planning and engineering), and removal of ward politics (i.e. establishing city-wide elections for council) (Sancton 1986: 291). As in previous times, the role of citizen was of only minor concern in the attempt to make the city more efficient. Sancton noted that "all views have one thing in common: they assume that the study of urban politics is above all the study of business dominance" (Sancton: 292). It was within that business-dominated urban political arena that public planning policy was formulated. "Though local governments were left largely to their own devices in this period, the beginnings of senior government intervention in local affairs was also apparent" (Taylor 1986: 273). That intervention became more acute as local governments began to feel the strain of financial obligations and programmes became too much to bear, especially between the First World War and the Great Depression. During that period local government autonomy had been dramatically curtailed by provincial governments in four areas: general municipal supervision through departments of municipal affairs; social welfare; planning and housing; and finance and audit 63  (Taylor: 276). That curtailment of local government action and expansion of senior government intervention was partially undertaken because planning practitioners and their client municipalities had failed to address broader social issues. It has had at least two major detrimental consequences for urban policy making in general and urban planning in particular. Local governments and their planning departments have been sheltered by senior governments from the broader policy issues facing cities and have too often remained oblivious to (and unaccountable for) the social, economic, and ecological consequences of their actions. Secondly, local government decision-making and associated community planning affecting major economic, ecological and social issues is vested in distant provincial capitals and may not reflect local needs. 3.1.4.2 P o s t 1960s  More recently, the Canadian city has undergone periods of very significant change. Yet, much of that cause for change has been externally generated or narrowly based. Local government has shown little interest in establishing self-directed broadly based strategies to adapt to and stimulate new responses to new situations and needs. For instance, Plunkett (1978: 17) wrote that, "generally speaking, municipal governments were regarded as being concerned primarily with administration and not policy." Mumford (1961: 46) confirmed the lack of concern for directing policy change by writing, "from the beginning, then, the city exhibited an ambivalent character it has never wholly lost."  That ambivalence continues to be exhibited in the recent changes experienced by Canadian cities. Those changes have occurred because of external forces or reactionary tendencies rather than proscriptive carefully analysed and articulated city-driven strategies. Those forces of change have included: (1) the intervention by  senior governments in local governmental  financial, social, and economic matters; (2) demand for massive infrastructure projects to facilitate urban growth; (3)  citizen interest in protecting local neighbourhoods  (i.e.  not-in-my-backyard or 'nimby'); (4) continued degradation of urban ecological conditions; and (5) globalisation of city industries and services. A l l of those forces have continued without any significant debate or direction by local government. The continued absence of directed and concerted city response to those forces of change remains a current reflection of that ambivalent 64  attitude referred to by Mumford. The lack of proactive city strategic planning does not bode well for the future of the Canadian city or the profession of community planning. Fowler (1992: 116) has explored this era and concluded that the history of the modern city is one in which the "institutional side (governments and bureaucracies) and the informal side (power) are involved in managing or facilitating the economic system -the production of goods and services - and with the reproduction of ourselves and of our culture -having and housing families, educating children, looking after our communities." He continued by noting that the past history of local government has shaped current government. "To this day, in the minds of many civic officials, local government exists to service property and to protect the rights of property owners, not to be an active and significant forum on civic affairs" ( Fowler: 118). While he believes that "municipalities are relatively powerless" (Fowler: 119), a view shared by Magnuson (1990), Fowler recognises that local government was a place of power. That power took the form of economic gain. " . . . because of their antecedents and spheres of competence, local governments have been called growth machines: they exist to promote economic growth" (Fowler: 119). Fowler's work provides an important addition to the study of Canadian urban policy, associated planning, and the more recent events of continued contest for economic power.  Since the 1960s, two major impacts on Canadian urban public policy and, hence, city planning occurred. The first related to the increased intervention by both federal and provincial governments in urban affairs. At city hall, local government policy was either directly or indirectly shaped by housing programmes, grants, and enabling legislation of the federal and provincial governments. As well, several provincial governments, most notably Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia moved to establish revamped forms of local government in the form of regional second tier and metropolitan forms of governance. The second impact related to a focus of local policy upon the support of sub-urbanisation. That policy has been identified by Lorimer (1970) as a narrow developer driven agenda of service delivery which was inherently a contest to maximise profit and perpetuate self-interest. Except for a few instances, senior government interventions and concern for service delivery restricted 65  local government debate to more of the same. City planners were caught between those agenda items and encouraged to maintain a narrow view of the urban world; a view based upon the maintenance of order. In addition, that service focus has been criticised for being inflexible and ironically -when compared to the original reasons for creating the supporting turn of the century bureaucracy,inefiicient. For instance, Plunkett and Betts (1978) noted that the linear structure of Canadian city administration restricts the ability of a council to make policy decisions which are intersectoral. Providing a clear and comprehensive assessment of the disadvantages of sectoral city organisations that commonly exist in Canadian local government, they confirmed that too much attention has been paid to treating the symptoms instead of the "nature of urbanisation" (Plunkett and Betts: 15). Such action has created a barren urban policy cupboard and urban planning vacuum. Both have limited the ability of cities in general and planners in particular to address the increasingly complex issues facing society.  As a place where powerful interests have shaped much of the policy surrounding development and allocation, the city raises significant questions about the role of community-based control of urban decision-making as well as important questions about the methods and associated ethics of decision-making in the city of the future. It is abundantly clear that the public participation programmes which were spawned out of the urban renewal backlash of the '60s have been tainted with the brush of individual self-interest. Yet, as the review of the significance of self-interest as a driving force in urban debate has shown, the contest of local neighbourhoods to protect 'their turf should not be surprising. The role of citizen involvement in the future city deserves considerable and careful thought.  In what appears to be a positive trend, there has been a shift away from business interest domination of local government toward "genuinely competitive municipal elections" (Sancton 1986: 292). Such activity is reflective of the increased general interest of the public during the reform movements of the '60s and '70s. While Sancton also noted that there exists a "general absence of politically salient cleavages based on class, ethnicity, or even neighbourhood," he confirmed that "Canadian city politics is, above all, about boosterism" (Sancton: 293). That 66  'boosterism' mentality creates competition between and within cities and competition creates economic, ecological, and social stress. Sancton concluded that "virtually all conflict in Canadian urban politics can be located on a pro-development - anti-development spectrum" which has limited much of the urban policy debate to "the control and servicing of property" (Sancton: 297). Clavel in The Progressive City (1987: 200) claimed that urban governments "sustain the politics of growth." Fowler (1992: 162) describes this trend as an outgrowth of "our ideology". And it is clear that the ideology which underlay the urban-development process in North America is the same as the one underlying its politics. It is based on the primacy of the individual, of private property, and of what has been called interest-group liberalism (Ibid). Perhaps, it is for that reason that cities continued to avoid the hard public policy decisions  that  were beginning to take shape in the '80s. Municipal planners have been caught in that same trend, because they report to the political masters of the urban arena. As the 1980's pushed economic reform to the top of the world agenda, Canadian cities did not respond with any central focused mandate or vision of their participation or purposeful exclusion in that new economic structure. Planners in particular remained quietly on the sidelines. As Wolfe (1994: 33) notes: the neoconservative decade raised some fundamental questions for planners. In a context of deregulation, privatization, cost-recovery, attempts to shrink government and the profit motive being given priority over public services and equality of opportunity, what is a planner supposed to do? Except for some limited and partial successes, such as Winnipeg's Core Area Initiative, community planning seemed to focus upon its regulatory role and deliver more of the same for "Canadian urban governments have traditionally adopted a profoundly minimalist interpretation of their responsibilities" (Artibise and Kiernan 1988: 3).  The continued narrow view by politician, citizen, and bureaucrat of appropriate urban policy and community planning activity is contributing to gaps in progressive ecological, social and economic policy development. Cities appear to have largely abrogated their task as a place to directly affect and direct change. They have refused to develop adaptive strategies, leaving 67  public policy examination of growing international, national, and regional trends to that of more senior government. This passive role by cities avoids the reality of a world where the vast majority of people live in structured communities that provide the economic and cultural base for the nation state. As Savitch (1988: 285) commented, "the post-industrial city represents not only itself but the aspirations of its nation." Therefore, there exists the need for a duality of consciousness: on the one hand a recognition that external events will continue to shape the city and that internal events will drive the impact of the externalities. City planners often remain at the edges of these considerations because their role is defined by the very local governments which have avoided the changing economic order. Planners may wish to play a role in addressing those challenges, but they will require conviction, interest, the necessary tools and methods to assist them, and, above all, direction from their political bosses to be more proactively involved. In so doing, they will need to consider their role in the politics of planning. Hoch (1992: 207) notes that "research has found evidence of deep and persistent tensions between the authority of the professional planner and the politics of public authority. "Power proves a formidable obstacle to the promise of achieving public good through the conduct of professional planning" (Ibid). Hoch continues by suggesting that some post-modem planning critics believe that "planning fosters power" (Ibid). In disagreeing with some of the postmodern views which "do not appeal to foundations of truth", Hoch also suggests that the postmodern views could be used to shake planning from its liberal connections for "the postmodern critique leaves no place for planning to hide from its attachment to power" (Ibid). Such attachment is a natural evolution for an allocative profession which has been associated with powerful city elite for many centuries. While that attachment to power has been much less direct in recent time, planners remain, as Hoch suggests, close to the sources of power. Forester (1989) explored that relationship and offered hope through practical action. He offered a way out for planners by suggesting that "the communicative actions of planners can shape political arguments, and those arguments in turn can help shape larger political strategies"(Forester 1989: 162). What do planners think of Forester's views? How does the political nature of planning affect their work? 68  3.1.5 Summary Historians of planning agree that those who have planned cities have been influenced significantly by their close association with elite urban decision-makers. Planners have been 'regimenters' of urban order for many hundreds of years. Even as those who planned for city growth and protection evolved into the profession of town planning at the turn of the century, there was a continued direct relationship with the business elite who dominated city decisionmaking. While a brief period of enlightened town planning permeated parts of society, most of the work of town planners revolved around planning for economic order, sanitary services and aesthetic design. Except for a brief period during the work of the Commission of Conservation, the tradition of Canadian planning does not appear to have much history of environmental and social action. Concerns for broad issues of economic, social and ecological well-being were exceptions to much of the 'blue print' planning following the demise of the Commission. The history of planning practice shapes the views and conditions modern planner. These views and conditions may limit the degree to which practitioners are able to respond to academic calls for modification of practice.  Do planners think that the globalization of local economies is threatening planners' work with communities? To what extent do planners think that their work is affected by the political nature of planning decision-making? Do planners think that their future can be different from their past? Do planners think they have a tradition? How has that tradition influenced their practice? Chapter 4 will explore those questions.  3.2 The effects of the politics of place upon planners Whether as advocates for developers, consultants to local government or as regulators and proponents in the public domain, planners are sometimes labelled by citizens, media and 69  politicians as reactionary, self-serving, insensitive and/or dictatorial working from hidden agendas, compromised by the need for fees (private sector) and power (public sector). For instance, Jacobs (1992) and Sewell (1993) criticise planners for their lack of community-based planning. Schon (1983: 13) explored this "crisis of confidence in the professions" and noted that there was a " growing scepticism about professional effectiveness ... and contribution to society's well-being." Planners were included in that assessment. While all professions are undergoing such scrutiny (see: Saul: 1993), planners need to pay special attention to the debate. Community planners by their very nature are susceptible to criticism from a number of sources. In particular, planners have been criticised for their work at the edges of politics.  Gerecke and Reid (1991: 60) present a detailed review of the effects of  the politics of place upon planners: Although the difficulties for planning have been heightened by its questionable embrace of the most virulent and anti-social form of corporatism, and so a minimalist embrace of the public interest, a more fundamental problem has always plagued city planning because of its commitment to a certain model of professionalism, a model that has always given it a bias towards corporatist solutions, one which, despite good intentions, has produced dependency and alienation. Even at their most socially enlightened level, therefore, corporatist goals and decision-making processes have always been limited and distorted by centralized and bureaucratic forms of power they embody, a form of power which distorts ethical practice, at the best of times, but one which eliminates them altogether, when means replaces ends as the modus operandi and the bureaucracy goes out of control. Gerecke and Reid (1991: 60) continue by noting a challenge facing planners. It was this: " . . . i f planners are going to address the fundamental problems generated by the restructuring of our cities, a reassessment will have to be made of the form of power their actions rest upon." While Hodge (1991: 12) is more sympathetic to the role of planners when he states that "planners usually demur regarding their power," he acknowledges that "community planning as we have come to know it must change, i f it is not to become mired in cynicism or rancour or both" (13). But, " i f planners adopt roles that ignore the political world, they will seriously misrepresent public problems and opportunities" (Forester 1989: 154). Therefore, community planners are expected to work in the arena of politics without succumbing to its siren call; to effectively, as Forester (1989: 3) wrote, "in a world of intensely conflicting interests and great inequalities of status and resources, plan in the face of power  (which) is at once a daily 70  necessity and a constant ethical challenge;" and to play what Schon (1983: 234) called "the intermediary role." Yet, as Schon (1983: 204) also noted, "the institutionalized context of planning practice is notoriously unstable and there are many contending views of the profession, each of which carries a different image of the planning role and a different picture of the body of useful knowledge." He continued by writing "the history of the evolution of planning roles can be understood as a global conversation between the planning profession and its situation" (1989: 205). Schon (1989: 206) described that situation as one in which planners have moved from "visibility, power and professional status" through a "centralist planning" model where "there is a working consensus about the context of the public interest ... and, there is  a system of  knowledge adequate for the conduct of central planning" to an "intermediary role" which encompasses a diversity of interests, regulatory systems, and structures. Schon identified that intermediary role as one in which conflict is bound to be at the centre. More importantly, Schon was contending that the practice of planning has entered a phase where common understanding of the expectations and roles of the planner have become blurred for the planner, the citizen and politician. As a result, conflict of role expectation may be a logical outcome of that misunderstanding. Chapter 4 will examine what practitioners think of the expectations that are held by the public and politicians. It will also examine what practitioners think of Forester's and Schon's views.  Others have pointed to the planning profession as a locus of conflict because of the nature of the practice itself. Gunton (1985) suggested that planning practice was susceptible to a cycle of on-again off-again status, interest and motivation. That discontinuity likely affects the practitioner's role or perception of role and the expectations of politician and public alike. Changing roles and loss of status and influence may have a deleterious effect upon both public and private planner. That confusion, and the constant requirement to adapt to changing political agendas and climates only compound the problems of conflict of expectations. They suggest the importance of better understanding the organisational milieu that encompasses planning practice as well as the emerging politics of power and conflict which are constantly found in evolving community agendas. Planners' views of their roles are explored in Chapter 4. 71  It has been acknowledged by a large number of writers that planning is very much in the thick of the politics of place and the power which surrounds that relationship (Forester 1989, Gerecke 1977, 1991, Grant 1994, Gunton 1985, Hodge 1991, Witty 1991a). But the writers do not agree on the extent to which planners play a power role and the extent that they do so purposefully. Hodge (1991: 13) provides one view of the relationship between planners and power: Planning and politics are inextricably linked. People know this, even though planners are often reluctant to acknowledge it. Planners have power, which is something people also know, but planners often demur. Planning has come to serve private interests, primarily commercial and corporate, while planners say they defend the public interest. Planning involves moral questions of social equity, among others, which is something too few planners are willing to concede, much less act upon. Gerecke and Reid (1991: 61) give us another more refined opinion as they developed a theory of corporatist driven planning which attacked planners for their role "as bondservants to this corporatist planning." They continue by noting that: . . . city planning must face the issue of power. Corporatism calls for a further centralization and exercise of power in the public weal. The new populist planning calls for the liberation of the power within every citizen, so that we may discover our ecology - the common wisdom which we have forgotten. Unfortunately, mainstream city planning works against this, mostly through professional advice, that is advice drawn from our expertise, not the wisdom of the community. Our practice calls for us to read the trends of societal change and give our advice based on the unfolding future. Too many planners subscribe to the doctrine of inevitability. The failure of city planning over the past four decades to put a human face into urbanization speaks volumes about the way we have served capital and not the people, and stands as an indictment of our ability to address the question of equity and ecology. The rise of laissez faire corporatism shows that this problem may get worse before it gets better, for the recent embrace of this form of corporatism by planners indicates that planning may become even more servile to the needs of capital than it has in the past (70). In an editorial for the Volume 31:6 1991 edition of Plan Canada, Mathur (5) captures the dilemma facing the profession: Often planners have argued that they face severe constraints because of the political environment in which they work, and because they do not have much power to advance the values of ecology and equity. This perception of powerlessness has led us to a catharsis in practising our values . . . A n alternative perception would be that planners wield considerable power in the community because of the information they hold, and the access they have to the ear of the decision-makers and the community.  72  While much of planning theory has dwelt upon the concern for linking theory and practice, John Forester (1989: 3-21) has moved the debate to a more practical level. It is a debate that focuses upon the reality of planning methods within the political institutions which shape decisions. He has noted that, "any account of planning must face these political realities." For Forester, "planners work on problems, with people". Therefore, planners must gain a much firmer understanding of the dynamics which affect their participation in the world of politics and people. It is a matter of recognising the direct implications that planners' methods have upon cities through balancing of issues and agendas. For there "are practical and political problems to be formulated, reinterpreted, continually reevaluated and reconstructed." The challenge for planners is to avoid working toward "impossible perfection" but, instead "to work toward a political democratization of daily communication." Forester (1989: 162) felt that "at every level, planners will find dynamics of power and needless distortion that jeopardize democratic participation and autonomy, and they can recognize, anticipate, and work to counteract these influences." But, none of above views has examined the opinions of practitioners. What do practitioners think about their role and relationship to the politics of place and the issues of power? Do planners believe that they are impeded by their relationship with the public and politicians? Chapter 4 will explore those questions and will determine Canadian planners' views about some of Forester's and Schon's opinions concerning the role of planners in the face of power and politics.  3.3 The search for a theoretical base Outside the practice of planning, some planning theorists have come to see planning as part of the establishment; as a reflection of special interests. It may well be that part of the constant quest for an accepted role and identity by planners for their profession emanates from their recognition that their lineage may not be only to the brief 'glory days' of the turn of the century when they emerged as a recognised profession of town planning, but, more particularly, to their association with the politics of local government. A review of planning theory suggests that these interpretations deserve exploration to determine what planning academics think about 73  planning practice and how their thoughts affect their relationship with those who practice planning. The following section examines some of those issues and identifies questions for planners concerning their views about planning theory.  3.3.1 Search for credibility Like many other professions, planners are facing on-going assaults upon their credibility. Perhaps one of the overriding problems facing community planning is the inability of planners to lay claim to any one method. Certainly those methods that have been adopted (and adapted) by planners have not provided much comfort as a source of identity. Faludi (1973) described the dilemma facing planners when he examined the relationship between physical planning where much of the roots of the profession exist and the broadening of planning practice into a much wider field. Westhues (1985: 97) believed, however, that the broadening field still retained a variety of techniques -"their bag of tricks." "Agreement has been reached on this point," she wrote, but "no such accord exists with regard to which model, or approach to planning, one should adopt." She continued by indicating that "efforts to develop a positive theory of planning have so far been limited to conceptual work" Perks (1979: 5) concluded that "we may someday have a coherent theory of planning, but I rather suspect that we can now only hope for a set of theories which are culture specific and politics specific." For the difficulty in addressing the future with one theory or set of methods is this: "If Canadian planners have learned anything in the past several decades, it is that there are multiple futures - multiple possibilities and multiple choices" (Perks and Jamieson 1991: 514).  Upon reflection, however, planners can identify a lineage to a mixed history of planning methods, from the utilitarian orientation of planning for much of its history to the urban reform period of the early 1900s; the latter being a rich - albeit short-lived- body of theory that developed in response to the special role that town planning was envisioned to play at the turn of the century. It was a vision that Hall (1988) and Friedmann (1987) have described with great care and attention. It was a vision that was part of the broader transformation that was occurring in society.  74  Friedmann (1987: 4) wrote: By the end of the eighteenth century, the idea of reason had begun to pass through a subtle transformation, moral reason was left with the role of gaining general insight into human affairs, but in the hierarchy of authority, reason in its scientific and technical form ranked first: it was reason of a higher order. That view had an important impact upon town planning. It ensured that the practice of modern planning would be bom within a new age of science. Friedmann (1987: 56-57) suggested that engineering science dominated the roots of the intellectual influences on American planning theory. Therefore, town planning -and ultimately community- planning was bound to become a profession that succumbed to the vagaries of scientific analysis, rationality, and authority. "For all of them, conservatives and radicals alike, the watchword was efficiency" (Friedmann 1987: 56). Such a philosophy would very likely force community planning to address narrow interests. While many who provided the new developments at the turn of the century did not attempt to develop new methods, there was a growing number of social reformers who saw in town planning an opportunity to not only provide better housing but also to re-order society. As Hall (1988: 3) wrote: The vision of these anarchist pioneers was not merely of an alternative built form, but of an alternative society, neither capitalistic nor bureaucratic-socialistic: a society based on voluntary co-operation among men and women, working and living in small self-governing commonwealths. Yet, Hall (1988: 4) concluded, "a striking common feature of many -though mercifully not allof the great founding figures of planning is their incoherence." Thus, community planning has been left a short history of anarchism which did not gain hold and secondly, a history of social reform that cannot be fully understood. Further, from the beginning modem community planning has continued to suffer under the burden of methodological self-doubt. Hall (1988: 48) put it best: Almost precisely in 1900, as a reaction to the horrors of the nineteenth-century slum city, the clock of planning history started ticking. But, paradoxically, as it did so, another much 75  older and bigger timepiece started to drown it out. The very problem, that the infant planning movement sought to address, almost instantly began to change its shape. Most of the philosophical founders of the planning movement continued to be obsessed with the evils of the congested Victorian slum city - which indeed remained real enough . . . But all the time, the giant city was changing, partly through the reaction of legislators and local reformers to these evils, partly through market forces . . . And all this took place even while the pioneers were writing, campaigning, exerting influence on the body politic. The resulting dilemma is an unresolvable dilemma for the writer (and the reader) of planning theory: it is never clear which came first, the suburbanizing chicken or the philosophical eggDuring what Gerecke (1977) has termed "the formal beginnings", Canadian planning was forced to abandon any thoughts of a radical departure toward city living -Gunton's (1981) urban radicalism- to a more palatable concept of partial reform. Friedmann (1987: 7) believed that "planners were sustained by a widely held belief that science and the new technologies of decision-making . . . could help provide what they promised: rational counsel for charting courses of action into the future." Modern community planning had taken shape during a time of scientific imperialism. Its early methods and special theoretical roots would lie exposed to the harsh climate of "scientific management" (Friedmann 1987: 7).  Community planning has frequently been captive to the science of others; forced to utilise methods and techniques that have been developed in other fields. " A result of the period of economic philistinism was to push planning towards valuing accuracy of information rather than significance" (Bailey 1975: 18). That reliance upon others may have created a serious identity problem for planning, more particularly in its 'procedural theory'. Community planning should be cautious of the warning imparted by Friedmann (1987: 36): "all planning must confront the meta-theoretical problem of how to make technical knowledge in planning effective in informing public actions . . . If not solved, planners will end up talking only to themselves and eventually will become irrelevant."  A review of the literature confirms that accepted planning practice methods were derived largely from others. "Stemming as they did from professional needs, often through spin-offs from related professions like architecture and engineering, they were from the start heavily suffused with the professional styles of these design-based professions. . . The job of planners was to make plans . . . relevant planning knowledge was what was needed for that job" (Hall 76  1988: 322). Therefore, Hall confirmed that the work of planners was more and more one of accommodation of growth by using the methods of others. It is apparent that the profession of planning was being founded upon weaker and weaker roots. As Friedmann and Hall concluded, community planning had become institutionalised. Likewise, Gerecke (1977) confirmed that Canadian planning had also be institutionalised. Baum (1983: 22) felt it had become "commoditized". Since community planning was largely product driven in the pre-1970s period, it required skills and methods which would help interpret events and rationalise choice. "Planners wanted to be absolutely certain that their counsel was reliable. They saw planning as a form of scientific management" (Friedmann 1987: 7). For that reason community planning moved to a wholesale acceptance of an engineering-based approach of locational analysis models (Hall 1988: 328). Webber (1984: 17) believed that "planners wanted to join the new social science by using computing technology to describe interdependence of components of the city's system." The 1960s became the age of the systems planner.  A review of the literature of the 1960s and 1970s reveals a rich and persuasive history of rational planning (McLoughlin 1969, Bourne 1971 and 1975). In particular, McLoughlin set about to establish a planning methodology that was both comprehensive and systematic. It is a seminal work that linked planning process to ecological systems theory. Basing his view of planning as "guiding and controlling Systemic change", McLoughlin (1969: 22) developed a useful model for planning process. It was a method that utilised location theory. He believed "the study of human locational behaviour within an ecological system framework offers considerable potential for progress in the building of sound, testable theories" (McLoughlin: 70). McLoughlin's appeal rested in his linkage of systems theory with a holistic planning process that was cyclic and scientific. At the time, he gave community planning status and credibility by extolling the virtues of the systems approach. Schon (1983) has pointed to this period as the "centralist" role for planners; one in which planners were held in high regard by politicians, citizens and other professionals because planning appeared to be rational process based upon science.  77  Using similar tools, Faludi (1973) proposed a "rational-comprehensive" model of planning that attempted to blend the newly emerging systems theory with traditional planning practice. It was an admirable attempt in a time when the science of planning was ascendant through the works of the regional economists such as Isard (1972). Batty and Hutchinson (1983) and others in Systems Analysis in Urban Policy-making and Planning provided an excellent review of the impact of systems theory upon planning. Batey (1983: 69) believed that "land use planning is based upon more formal, replicable, methods. . . methods are systematic. This means that, like the planning process itself, a method can be expressed as a series of logical steps." Masser (1983: 89), in the same volume, confirmed that the "dramatic changes that have taken place in planning methodology during the last twenty years have occurred in the field of procedural methodology." He identified those changes as "a series of waves of innovation" (Masser: 90). Thus, community planning once more received its impetus for methodological development from other disciplines, in this case primarily transportation planning. Do planners practising today believe the profession of planning has a unique set of methods? To the extent they do, do planners apply those methods? What methods do they apply? What are their views about rational and comprehensive processes? Do they agree with Friedmann (1987: 36): "all planning must confront the meta-theoretical problem of how to make technical knowledge in planning effective in informing public actions . . . If not solved, planners will end up talking only to themselves and eventually will become irrelevant" ? Chapter 4 will examine those questions.  3.3.2 Split between practice and academia In 1979, Camhis raised an early concern that "the emphasis has shifted from changing reality to managing reality according to certain criteria" (Camhis: 4). He went on to note that "we are thus led to believe that the right form of the planning process will inevitably determine the right content or what the real problem is" (Camhis: 5). Further, he stressed that the focus upon process rather than results created a "confinement to a methodology of the activity of planners without considering man's condition in society as it is influenced by the effects of planning" (Camhis: 6). 78  As practice continued to try and develop rational models which would define appropriate choices, an academic rejection of the 'rational planner' emerged with a fierce cry of betrayal. Hall (1988) identified this dramatic split. He recalled that, by the 1970s, the positivists in the planning schools retreated, to be replaced by Marxists and neo-Marxists such as Camhis and Castells*. It was, Hall (1988: 335) said, "a veritable explosion - of Marxist studies." Thus, the methods of planning, finally legitimised in the minds of many practitioners and theorists, were assailed with a passionate call for re-thinking. "Under these conditions, the paradigm of scientific planning, which had held sway for over a century and a half, was suddenly besieged by doubts" (Friedmann 1987: 63). Planning from the 1960's to the 1980's was attacked by Gerecke (1991), as well as Friedmann (1987) as elitist and serving the capitalist system. They both argued that planning had turned its back on its true anarchist roots and its own theoretical base of Geddes and Mumford; a holistic tradition of social, ecological, economic, and physical sensitivity, analysis and decision-making. But, they also argued for more. They believed that community planners must take on a broader role, one that would lead by example and stimulate a resurgence of social reform and, in the words of Friedmann (1987), "Social Mobilization."  Albrecht (1985: 1) joined the chorus of condemnation of the profession's infatuation with rationality. As a result of the influence of science and focus on rationality, he believed that "a general technocratization, bureaucratization, and rationalization of society has taken place. Since planning evolved in this context, it is, therefore, partially a result and mirror, and partially an instrumental point of view of this overall development." For Albrecht, planning moved away from "full involvement in social processes" and a concern for the influence that science and rationality might have upon the profession and society to one which is not a formative role but a reaction "to changes that have already occurred" (Albrecht: 2). Albrecht, like Friedmann (1987), felt that planning must accept that it is a social (rather than a technical) process and that it has an "inherent obligation to influence and guide change" (Ibid). Therefore, in Albrecht's view  For a major early review of the Marxist imperative as it related to planning, see: Camhis (1979: 90-112).  79  "change is not being sufficiently guided because rationality is reduced to considerations of facts and means" (Albrecht 1985: 3). He wrote: What is needed is nothing less than a reduction of the restrictions on what constitutes genuine knowledge and of the imposed limitations on rationality, a broadening of the contents of rational discourse that must include ethical and value considerations, a rethinking of what it means to live a rational life, and a reconciliation of theory and practice. (Albrecht: 4) * But reconciliation would be difficult to achieve, as the writers of theory continued to condemn the practitioners, particularly practitioners such as Faludi*. While the calls for methodological change were not without foundation, they were coloured by a Marxist philosophy. Marxist thought collided with the practitioners' world that was dominated by liberal democratic traditions. Nor were these differences unique to planning (Schon 1983). The attacks by many of the planning school academics upon planning practice came about because "the disciplines of economics and geography provided theories and empirical studies which claimed that the behaviour of people in cities could be described by laws. . . Planners wanted to join the new social science by using computing technology to describe the interdependence of components of the city system" (Webber 1984: 17). Such a trend should not be unexpected from a profession whose roots were tentatively grasping for solid footing.  By the 1980s, however, the growing rift between practitioners and theorists had become a chasm. Hall (1988: 340) pointed to that problem: What was new, strange, and seemingly unique about the 1980s was the divorce between the Marxist theoreticians of academe - essentially academic spectators, taking grandstand seats at what they saw as one of capitalism's' last games - and the anti-theoretical, anti-strategic, anti-intellectual style of the players on the field down below. The 1950s were never like that; then, the academics were the coaches, down there with the team . But, a deeper concern can be identified. It is this: in the debate about the relevance of the work  * Like McLoughlin (1969), Faludi was considered by practitioners to be a major contributor to planning thought. Faludi was primarily a consultant and as a result was soundly condemned by theorists such as Gerecke (1977) for attempting to impose a planning methodology that was premised upon the rational comprehensive model. While Faludi was accused of promoting the wrong model, he did instil a pride in planning practice at the time. It is no wonder that planning practitioners looked upon academics who criticized the rational comprehensive model as traitors. It is a history that continues to fracture the relationship between some practitioners and academics today. 80  of planners, practitioners "received a demolition job on planning by the American theorists" (Hall  1988:  334). In Canada, Gerecke led the criticism of planning processes and  methodologies*. "Canadian planning has regressed over the past 15 years. Having no clearly defined goals, and still working very much with a discredited methodology . . . In truth, we are working in a methodological and ethical vacuum" (Gerecke and Reid 1991:59). For many planners on the frontlines who were caught frequently between community wants and political agendas, there was nowhere to turn. Many felt abandoned by the academic community, especially those who espoused Marxist solutions for liberal democratic situations. As a result, the seeds of conflict between those who practised planning and those who wrote about planning increased. No longer would the Faludi's of planning, who practised, taught and wrote about planning, and, in so doing, raised the spirits of practitioners through their writing about community planning as a rational process, be heard.  Community planning was also attacked because, as Hall (1988: 343) noted, "planning turned from regulating urban growth, to encouraging it by any and every possible means." But even that 'regulation' had been more like an 'accommodation' of growth rather than any systematic questioning of its virtue. As a result, the call for new methods that would lead to a new social order were impractical and out-of-touch with what had become the reality of the practitioner's world; a world in which most agendas looked for the means to stimulate growth, not question it or impede it. Quite simply, it was too much to ask of planners, who were immersed in the complexity of politics, bureaucracies, and community debate, to be the catalysts of change (Witty 1991,Wolfe 1994). Instead, practitioners, i f they were to survive in their workplace, needed to balance the requirements of generally accepted community-based input with the concept of holistic planning, but devoid of any radical rhetoric.  The emerging challenge was to develop methods  * During this period, Kent Gerecke was the editor of City Magazine, a publication which condemned much of the urban planning and policy making in Canada. 81  which had political and social legitimacy while being comprehensive in scope. That need appears to still exist today. Until planners and academics work together to develop appropriate methods and processes, there will continue to be, as Hall (1988) noted, no "theory of planning or theory in planning."  Some theorists such as Forester (1980, 1986, 1989) have attempted to provide constructive comment to the debate about the relevancy and role of planning within its political environment. In 1980, Forester noted the important role that communication played in planning decisionmaking. He continued to explore that role during the remainder of the decade. If planners do not recognize how their ordinary actions may have subtle communicative effects, they may be well-meaning but nonetheless counter-productive. They may be sincere but mistrusted, rigorous but unappreciated, reassuring yet resented (Forester 1989: 327). The majority of planning literature has identified the need for planners to assume a greater role in ensuring that planning methods reflect broader community-based approaches to decisionmaking by rejecting an over reliance upon rational scientific processes. What do practitioners think? How do they feel about rational and comprehensive processes? Do they agree with the academic literature? Much of the literature has condemned the products of current planning efforts*. But, there appears to be a large gap between what academics think planners should do and what planners actually do. Therefore, it is important to gain the practitioners' view of their role, their view of planning education, their perception of the state of planning, and their views on where planning  * M o r e recently, planning theorists have started to examine their role i n the fallout from their criticism o f the practice o f planning. In a guest editorial i n Environment and Planning (1993), pointedly entitled " A small group o f friends", Mitchell-Weaver points to planning theory as "a form o f bizarre semantic criticism." H e went on to suggest that, "planning theorists.. .became increasingly involved i n arcane speculation and disconnected f r o m the profession . . .planning theorists have become intellectual spirits without corporal bodies, navigating through the seven heavens w i t h esoteric signs and powerful amulets . . . Trapped i n an absurd discourse . . . a small group o f friends meet at planning conferences and publish each other's outlandish ruminations without hope o f a broader professional audience." Mitchell-Weaver concluded that "something is obviously amiss today with planning theory."  82  should be headed and how planners can get there. What do practitioners think of Schon and Forester's opinions? Do practitioners feel that Schon accurately describes the role of the planner when he states that planners have moved from "visibility, power and professional status" through a "centralist planning" model where "there is a working consensus about the context of the public interest . . . and, there is a system of knowledge adequate for the conduct of central planning" to an "intermediary role" which encompasses a diversity of interests, regulatory systems, and structures (1983: 206)? Do they agree with Forester that "planners will find dynamics of power and needless distortion" and that "they can recognize, anticipate and work to counteract these influences?" Both Schon and Forester have received much attention. Do planners support their views? Chapter 4 examines practitioners' views on those subjects.  3.4 Planning's practice  traditions and their effect upon  The most extensive review and description of planning's tradition is contained in Friedmann's "Planning in the Public Domain" (1987). Although ignoring Ebenezer Howard and Patrick Geddes in his review, Friedmann does provide the most comprehensive overview of planning's traditions from 1800 to present day. He identified four "major traditions of planning theory." Those traditions (social reform, policy analysis, social learning and social mobilization) were grouped under two main political ideological headings (conservative and radical) with ten subsets of traditions in planning theory and included: (1) under conservative political ideology: (a) policy analysis with systems analysis, welfare and social choice and public administration as its traditions, and (b) under social learning ideology organization development as its tradition; and (2) under radical political ideology: (c) social reform with sociology, institutional economics, and pragmatism as its traditions; and (d) social mobilization with historical materialism/neoMarxism, the Frankfurt school, and Utopian, social anarchists and radicals as its tradition. Friedmann (1987: 75) believed that "a healthy social system cannot remain the prisoner of only one mode of linking knowledge to action: it will need to draw on all four traditions for its planning practice." He went on to state that "the traditions of social learning and social mobilization seem to be especially pertinent today" (Ibid). 83  Friedmann (1987: 87) proceeded to describe the ten traditions and the focus that planners practicing in each one have. He noted that "social reform may be called the central tradition in planning theory." But, he also stressed that the social reform tradition had failed. He proposed another model, "social mobilization," which has its roots in the world of Marxism, utopianism, social anarchism, and radicalism and which "developed as the great counter-revolution to social reform." Those two views reflect the dichotomy that Hall (1988) noted in planning at the turn of the century. It is a dichotomy between the practice of planning as social reform and the theory of planning as social mobilization. That basic difference of view of the profession appears to have created a schism between many of those who teach planning and many of those who practice planning. Do planning practitioners think that there is a weak linkage between theory and practice?. What are their views about planning education? Do planners agree with Friedmann's call for planners to help lead social mobilization?  3.4.1 Planning models Planning has a number of models that have framed its development. Those models have ranged from what Faludi calls "blueprint planning'" to "process planning." The following sections explore those models and their influence upon modem community planning practice. The implications of theory and practice will be considered as each affects what Friedmann and Weaver (1979) call, "planning doctrine."  Practitioners must work in a complex world of community activism, economics, ecology, sociology and physical development. How do practitioners think that the models of planning shape practice? Chapter 4 will explore those questions.  3.4.1.1 T h e o r y a n d p r a c t i c e  Models are guided usually by either a normative or empirical underpinnings. Normative theory refers to philosophical speculation about value applications. Hodge (1994: 174) considers planning "a normative process: it both recognizes and intervenes in the value system of 84  community members." Since empirical description is premised upon an ordering of facts, community planning based upon an empirical foundation was widely promoted by practitioners and theorists alike during the 1970's and early 80's when the rationalist scientific influences instructed planning theory and practice. While Friedmann (1987) and Gerecke (1977), amongst others, have condemned a narrow scientific approach to community planning, in their criticism they have helped to re-shape empirical theory so that conclusions are validated by experience. Empiricism maintains that scientific theory should be a set of empirically based predictions. For a discipline like community planning, there appears to be validity in recognising that both normative theory and empirical findings contribute to the formulation of theory and practice. It is that duality that is most striking in community planning and perhaps what sets it apart from so many other professions. Friedmann and Weaver (1979) provide an interesting perspective on practice and theory. They describe five "principal dimensions of regional planning" (Figure 1). Central to both theory and practice is "planning doctrine." They note that both procedural and substantive planning theory shape planning doctrine*. As they noted, "without practice, doctrine would remain a barren thing." But, Friedmann and Weaver (1979: 3) also determined that, while "in Great Britain, doctrine arose largely as a pragmatic response to problems encountered in reality . . . in the United States, . . . doctrine came first and often continued to evolve independently of practice." Reviewing the work of Friedmann and Weaver (1979), Gertler et al (1987: 11) commented that "perhaps the major difference in the British and American cases is that in Canada  procedural  theory in planning lags behind a highly evolved substantive theory." Friedmann and Weaver (1979: 3) also noted that: to the extent that procedural theory in planning is regarded as an academic subject, its removal from practice is as complete as with most substantive theory. But, in contrast to the latter, procedural theory often takes its cue from problems arising in the real world.  * Faludi (1973: 7) believed that "procedural theory is seen as a part of substantive theory." Faludi felt procedural theory "can be seen as planners understanding themselves and the ways in which they operate" and substantive theory "helps planners to understand whatever their area of concern may be."  85  Figure 1 Principal Dimensions of Regional Planning  Existing socio-economic, political and spatial organization of society.  <  Source: Friedmann, J. and Weaver, C , Territory and Function (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1979), Pg. 2  That recognition of the unique relationship of planning theory and practice is instructive for any discussion of planning practice, particularly in Canada where there has been a recognised dual parentage between Great Britain and the United States (see: Gunton 1981 and Gerecke 1977). Gertler et al (1987) described theory and practice as follows: Theory of planning provides a framework for understanding. However, it is not surprising that there are a number of theories, some conflicting and others complementary. A search for one universally acceptable theoretical basis for planning is unrealistic; because of the eclecticism of planning, a variety of ways of understanding it is inevitable. Practice describes the activities of those who are involved in the process of planning for and managing change - activities which produce effects or results which are premeditated and not accidental. These activities are not arbitrary but are based on theory, they have been selected from a predefined range of possible activities, and this selection is based on a system of goals and objectives which will benefit the community for which the activity is taken. Habermas (1973: 255) provides a sense of the significance that technology has had upon the relationship of theory and practice: "when theory was still related to praxis in a genuine sense, it conceived of society as a system of action by human beings, who communicate through speech and thus must realize social intercourse within the context of conscious communication." Habermas (1973: 264) expressed concern about the "methodology of the empirical sciences . . . tacitly but effectively rooted in a technical cognitive interest that excludes all other interests; consequently all other relations to life-praxis can be blocked out under the slogan of ethical neutrality or value-freedom." Habermas raised concerns about the "danger of an exclusively technical civilization, which is devoid of the interconnection between theory and praxis." In his view, the method of practice was as important as the theory behind the practice. It is a warning that Forester (1989) has heard and reflected upon in his book, Planning in the Face of Power.  Page and Lang (1978: 2) believed that planners faced serious questions about their role as professionals, largely because they are unable "to come to agreement on the nature and extent of the esoteric knowledge over which its members claim exclusive right to practice." As result they felt that "at the heart of this issue is the relationship of theory and practice." It will useful to explore the views of practising planners on this relationship. What do planners think of their 87  planning education? Could it have been improved? How? How do they understand theory and what do they think of the linkage between theory and practice? Chapter 4 examines those questions.  3.4.1.2 P l a n n i n g m o d e l s  Although his work was founded on the premise that "procedural theory is seen as part of substantive theory" and he admired the new scientific rationalist "substantive theory" that was prevalent during the time, Andreas Faludi (1973: 7) did undertake a thorough review of the planning models that formed the basis of planning theory and practice. Therefore, while Faludi's approach to planning would be condemned by many theorists today for its reliance upon a scientific and systems application, his review of the models of planning has been recognised as a significant contribution to planning thought (Camhis 1979: 1). His summary and that of Camhis, who disagreed with Faludi's view that "planning theory should be concerned with (procedural theory).. .rather than with substantive theory," will be used here.  3.4.1.2.1 Ration alist m odels The various planning models cited by Faludi and Camhis did not evolve in a sequential format as more information was available or as technology changed. The models were utilised in parallel streams depending upon the tasks at hand. That variety of models in place at any one time would undoubtedly lead to confusion on the part of those who wished to utilise the services of planners, those who taught planning, and the practitioners themselves. But, it does point to a profession which appears to be rooted in pragmatism. While Adams' comprehensive model quickly gave way to a return to the blueprint planning model practised by many planners prior to the early 1900's, neither the comprehensive model nor the blueprint model has ever left Canadian planning. It is this breadth of planning methods which exist as the foundation for many community planners. It is a rich history and one which suggests that there is likely no one planning theory but a composite of theories appropriate for different situations and tasks. For instance, during the 1930's, '40s and 50's when planners once more focused upon physical development, blueprint planning (i.e., physical planning) appeared to regain prominence. It 88  remains the hallmark of some planning offices in 1998*. B y the 1960's however, the comprehensive rationalist model returned. This more modern form of comprehensive planning fell under Faludi's banner of process planning. The rational comprehensive model set out to see the planning world in a holistic view which would permit wise decisions to be made unencumbered by nothing but 'the facts'. As Camhis (1979: 35) noted, "rational comprehensive planning was widely criticized for the impossibility of meeting its formidable requirements." Camhis' statement that "despite all the criticism, the rational comprehensive approach has never really been abandoned," remains true into the twenty-first century. The rapid changes to the planning profession have been captured succinctly by Hall (1988.: 334): The change can be caricatured thus: in 1955, the typical newly graduated planner was at the drawing board, producing a diagram of desired land uses; in 1965, s/he was analysing computer output of traffic patterns; in 1975, the same person was talking late into the night with community groups, in the attempt to organize against hostile forces in the world outside. It was a remarkable inversion of roles. For what was wholly or partly lost, in that decade, was the claim to any unique and useful expertise, such as was possessed by the doctor or the lawyer. . . . And, some critics were beginning to argue, this was because planning had extended so thinly over so wide an area that it became almost meaningless. Speaking to a central issue about the legitimacy of planning, Hall (1988: 334) provides a clue about why practitioners may have felt that academia had become wholly irrelevant and that, in addition, for those practitioners who bothered to read the literature that academia had betrayed them. He wrote, "the fact was that planning, as an academic discipline, had theorized about its own role to such extent that it was denying its own claim to legitimacy. . . . As a result, by the mid-1970's planning had reached the stage of a 'paradigm crisis'; it had been theoretically useful to distinguish the planning process as something separate from what is planned, yet this had  * In the past five years, the focus of Andreas Duany upon the physical form of 'neo-traditional towns', has brought back a renewed interest by community planners in built form and associated 'blueprint' planning. Much of that work has been criticized as being too imposed upon the landscape or too elitist. Yet, there have been some parts of the neo-traditional movement that have been used effectively to recreate town centres and enhance mixed use development along major public transit corridors. A quick review of those proponents of the new urbanism indicates that most are architects. Planners appear to have become mired in policy debates which seem less relevant to 1990's. 89  meant a neglect of substantive theory, pushing it to the periphery of the whole subject." Thus, while the rational comprehensive model was pushed to the side by academic criticism, practitioners continued to apply it, because they were provided with nothing to replace it. What do practitioners think about comprehensive planning? Do they see planning as a rational process? Do they think that education prepares them for practice?  3.4.1.2.2 Other versions of rationalism Lindblom's (1979) disjointed incrementalism or muddling through, was another planning model to emerge during these turbulent times. During the '70s, the rationalists and disjointed incrementalists argued about which was more relevant. Etzioni (1981) criticised both approaches. Etzioni proposed another model, the mixed-scanning approach. Camhis (1979: 37) confirmed that it was "a mixture of 'rationalization' and 'incrementalism', drawing elements from both." Faludi (1973: 113) believed that mixed-scanning offered an important new "planning strategy based on the facility of the human mind for pattern recognition." But, like all the other models of the 60's and 70's, mixed-scanning also fell victim to criticism from the left. By the late 70's and early 80's, neo-Marxists had taken control of planning theory (Hall 1988). They based their new approaches upon a new humanism. Do practitioners believe that planners should be more proactive in addressing community values? Do planners see future planning models as different from current practice?  Chapter 4 will explore those questions.  3.4.2. Social learning During the 1970's community planners experienced an explosion of thought and proposed new models, many of which were short-lived. One that had the greatest influence on planning thought was based upon social learning. Friedmann has come to be seen as one of the most important proponents of that perspective For instance, he wrote:  90  Social practice is therefore not just another form of social problem-solving, of trying to cope with the symptoms of social alienation . . . its highest aim is to transform these conditions and so to bring a social order into being that will no longer be estranging and estranged, but provide a sheltering sense of security, enhance personal autonomy, increase opportunities for creative, satisfying work, strengthen individual and communal control over immediate environments, render the larger social environment more comprehensible and capable of serving human needs, and endow individual as well as communal actions with a transcendent sense of purpose (1974: 9-10). It was a tall order and one that, although more fully articulated 13 years later by Friedmann i n Planning i n the Public Domain, would remain isolated in the writing of anarchist planning academics, far from the fertile fields of practice.  3.4.2.1 T r a n s a c t i v e p l a n n i n g  Friedmann (1973) described transactive planning as a method which facilitated communication between planners and the public. In 1987, Friedmann (1987: 391) rephrased it "transformative theory" with "its own distinctive character: 1. A n expressive language capable of reaching ordinary people. 2. Consistency in the relation of its several parts to each other. 3. Comprehensive with respect to the main variables relevant for system transformation. 4. A formulation that enables the ready adaptation of general theory to unique, specific settings." It reflects a radical planning model for the "mediation of theory and practice in social transformation". Fundamental to transactive planning is the need for humanity to re-educate itself. Camhis (1979: 77) challenged this concept by questioning the practicality of this learning to leam. He continued by stating that "Friedmann's approach is reminiscent of the nineteenthcentury Utopians (socialist and otherwise) and can be criticized in very similar terms." Camhis (1979: 87), appearing as a neo-Marxist, held that "transactive planning and the anarchistic theory of knowledge move away from 'objectivity' and 'rationality' but still remain within the framework set by 'bourgeois' planning theory and philosophy of science." Camhis indicates the degree to which some academics had moved to an extreme position. He believed that anarchists such as Friedmann had not gone far enough and soundly condemned "the Utopian/anarchistic brand of theory, despite the good 'ideas' that it contains, (because) it is a 91  criticism that is followed not by confrontation, i.e., an attempt to understand and change, but by an escape" (Ibid). Despite such criticism, Friedmann continued to work on the transactive model and from it developed the concept of social mobilization in Planning in the Public Domain (1987).  3.4.2.2 S o c i a l m o b i l i z a t i o n  As Friedmann (1987: 225) noted, "the planning tradition of social mobilization (SM), which encompasses the three great oppositional movements of utopianism, social anarchism, and historical materialism, developed as the great counter-movement to social reform . . . Like the social reform tradition, the roots of social mobilization reach deep into the eighteenth century." He provided a wide-ranging review of social mobilization. By concluding that, "the starting point of planning in the tradition of S M is a thoroughgoing social critique," Friedmann (1987: 258) believed that, "social criticism is thus the inevitable prelude to radical practice." He suggested that by "listening to this critique, we hear the voices of those without substantial power . . . " Friedmann pointed out that, unlike social reform which relied upon a confirmation of the basic system, social mobilization calls for a major restructuring of society. Such restructuring, however, will require, in the words of Friedmann (1987: 258), that "planning, defined as the linkage between knowledge and action in the public domain, . . . be applied to two kinds of action . . . societal guidance and with social transformation."  Those requirements are significant, especially given that "anarchists and Marxists have leveled severe critiques at 'bourgeois forms of planning' . . . On the one hand, planners are seen as part of the repressive apparatus of the state . . . On the other hand, the prevailing bourgeois theories of planning are condemned for being ahistorical, abstract, and unrelated to social conflict and class struggle" (Friedmann 1987: 299). Friedmann (1987: 303-304) identified a normative model for radical planning. It had nine dimensions: (1) "radical planning begins with critique of the present situation";" (2) "planners can help communities and groups that are already mobilized to search for practical solutions to the problems perceived by them;" (3) "devising an appropriate strategy . . . requires timely, accurate, and richly textured information;" (4) "considering technical aspects;" (5) " the social learning model is iterative and recursive;" (6) 92  "what has been learned from practice constitutes valuable knowledge, especially i f the knowledge is also used to expand and revise theoretical and ideological components;" (7) "radical practice is oppositional. Sooner or later, it will run up against the state;" (8) "Radical planners have a responsibility to resist (an oligarchical) tendency and ensure the widest possible participation of all members;" and (9) "action needs to be undergirded by structures of meaning or ideology." Friedmann's social mobilization has received significant attention in the world of academia, but it has not received any notable application in the practice of planning. Friedmann's challenges to practitioners have been frequent and consistent. He represents much of the thinking in many schools of planning. What do practitioners think of Friedmann's work? Do they agree with him that "all planning must confront the meta-physical problem of how to make technical knowledge in planning effective in informing public actions . . . If not solved, planners will end up talking only to themselves and eventually will become irrelevant"(1987: 36).  Unlike the previously identified models, which have been developed and applied by practitioners, social mobilization may very likely remain largely outside of planning practice, unless it can be linked to a broader application. As a result, it endures primarily as a theory only, unable to cope with the realities of planning offices or council chambers. What do practitioners think of Social Mobilization? Are they ready to apply it to their work? What do they think will hinder its application? Does it form a basic part of practice or does it reside in academia as an elusive goal which few planners are willing to support? Chapter 4 explores the practitioners views about Social Mobilization and Friedmann's question concerning technical knowledge.  3.5 Planning Professionalism For the purposes of this dissertation, professionalism is defined as the qualities, including skills and competence, or typical features of a profession (after the Concise Oxford Dictionary 1991b Notwithstanding Illich's criticism of professions in Disabling Professions (1977) and the work 93  o f Saul (1993), the planning profession has much to learn and possibly  much to offer i f  properly redefined for the 21st century. This section w i l l reflect upon the Canadian planning profession.  The Canadian Institute o f Planners defines responsible professional planning experience as: (a) compromising analysis, projection, design or program development which specifically requires consideration o f the inter-relationships o f space and time among resources, facilities and activities and which expresses this consideration in a manner to influence the disposition o f land or the allocation o f resources, facilities or services, (b) which shows a specific relationship to public policies or programmes for controlling or influencing the development o f communities, (c)  which  comprises. a  substantive  component  of  initiative, judgment,  substantial  involvement and personal accountability or definition or preparation o f significant elements o f the program o f work, and (d) which is undertaken i n Canada (Canadian Institute o f Planners Membership Manual 1992). The foregoing definition proposes several key elements for professionalism. They include skills o f analysis, projection, design and program development; study of time and space; allocation o f resources, facilities or services; ability to relate to public policies or programmes; and initiative and judgement.  A l l o f those elements are applied by other professionals from time to time in  greater or lesser degree. None o f those elements are solely the purview o f planners. It is that lack o f unique skills that may lie at the heart o f the debate about planning's relevancy as a profession. The following sections examine the views o f planners about their relevancy.  3.5.1 Ethics Hendler (1990: 22-23) writes that professional codes had potential as a bridge between planning and ethics. She discusses "two distinct entities: a code o f ethics and a code o f conduct:"  the former is an idealistic set of moral ideas which may contribute to the conceptual formation o f a profession. The latter is a more practical statement focused on day-to-day behaviour . . . codes ought to play the role o f providing general, philosophical principles 94  which define and direct the moral scope of a profession. A code may be regarded as a source of inspiration and vision for the professional.. . Codes of conduct, on the other hand, are to contain pragmatic guidelines for professionals. This type of code must be enforceable and comprehensive. The code will be in the form of a set of normative principles which should be, in a general sense, consistent with its accompanying code of ethics, yet contains more specific notions of context. Hendler goes on to state that "articulated codes may enable universal characterization of the expectations of a given profession and establish its ethical mandate." Howe (1994) expands the discussion of ethics in planning. She has produced a major work (Acting on Ethics in City Planning) and identifies four ethical principles used by planners: "honesty, in the legal sense; 'duties of justice,' including the obligations to provide independent professional advice and to be responsive to the public; the duty to be accountable to elected officials; and the duty to serve the public interest" (Howe: 22). What do planners think of their role and obligations to the public?  3.5.2 Code of conduct The Canadian Institute of Planners adopted a Statement of Values and Code of Professional Conduct in 1994. That Statement of Values and Code of Professional Conduct notes that "planning is an applied science and art based upon knowledge and wisdom gained through education and experience." It states "planners work for the public good. Planning includes a concern for health, aesthetics, equity and efficiency." It suggests competence gained through education and experience. The Statement of Values and Code of Professional Conduct also proposes a code of professional conduct which has three main subjects: the planners' responsibility to the public interest by using "theories and techniques of planning that inform and structure debate, facilitate communication, and foster understanding"; the planner's responsibility to clients and employers through "diligent, creative, independent and competent performance of work in pursuit of the client's or employer's interest"; and the planner's responsibility to the profession "to attain and maintain a high standard of professional competence." This part of the code speaks to the 95  qualities of a profession. These qualities include: (1) in terms of public interest, "practice in a manner that respects the needs, values and aspirations of the public and encourages discussion on these matters; provide full, clear and accurate information . . .; acknowledge the interrelated nature of planning decisions and their consequences for individuals, the environment, and the broader public interest; and identify and promote opportunities for meaningful participation in the planning process to all interested parties;" (2) in terms of clients and employers, "provide independent professional opinion . . .; work with integrity and professionalism; perform work only within the member's professional competence . . .: ensure full disclosure to a client or employer of a possible conflict of interest. . .; reject, and not offer, any financial or other inducements that could influence or affect professional opportunities or planning advice; not sign or seal a final drawing, specification, plan, or report or other document not actually prepared or checked by the member;" and (3) in terms of responsibility to the profession, "act in a fair, honest manner; encourage healthy and constructive criticism about theory and practice of planning . . .; maintain an appropriate awareness of contemporary planning philosophy, theory, and practice . . " The Code addresses the requirements of a professional in the conduct of her work. What do practitioners see as their responsibility?  3.5.3 The public interest Canadian planning through its tradition and practice appears to have a professional base comparable to other professions. But, the full judgement of a profession rests as much from what others perceive to be acceptable attributes and accepted recognition of professional practice as does the self-imposed professional code adopted by the profession for itself. Evidence (Gerecke 1977, Gunton 1981) suggests that, while planning had a broad well supported base amongst the public and other professions at the turn of the century through to the end of the Second World War, planning's professional credibility has suffered in both appearance and fact during the past few decades (Jacobs 1993 and 1997, Sewell 1993 and 1994). Thus, professional community planners are under suspicion by those for whom they "have primary responsibility" (i.e., the public) and by those for whom they work (i.e., clients and employers). Part of the questioning of community planning may rest in, what  Hoch 96  (1992) described as "a major paradox (which) emerges when planning professionals claim to serve the public interest -the paradox between individual freedom and social justice" (cf. the works of Taylor, Saul and Maclntryre). In addition, Merton (1982; 110) raised concerns about the role of institutional altruism which "is the special form of altruism in which structural arrangements, notably the distribution of rewards and penalties, promote behavior that is beneficial to others." Planners, like other professionals,  need to be aware of the fallout  of altruistic action. Merton went on to identify a triad of values in the professions: •  value assigned to systematic knowledge and specialised intellect: knowing:  •  professions assign high value to trained capacity and technical skill: doing:  •  value embedded in the professional role of getting this knowledge and skill to work in the disciplined service of others: helping.  What do community planners themselves have to say about their work in the arena of public interest? What do they think influences their work? Where do they think their work should be directed in the future? These are relevant questions i f Gertler's and Strong's calls to action are to be heeded not just by members of CIP but also by other professions, the public, and politicians.  3.6 Conclusion City planning has been infused with a lengthy tradition over several thousand years of serving the few over the interests of the many. City planners were very much a part of the history of city self-interest and contest. In the words of John Friedmann (1987: 8), "from Auguste Comte to Rexford Tugwell, planners had always sought support from ruling elites." While that history is one that particularly reflects the traditions of Europe, the relationship between power and planners has been identified in North America by others such as Forester (1989) and Hoch (1992). As a result, the tradition of planning has been one that has helped shape cities in the image of those elites who determined the interests of the city. That interest took the form of 97  economic and military dominance. City planners have been facilitators of a utilitarian city form that has reflected the interests of maintaining city prominence. The City Beautiful movement was in support of that focus upon superficial city planning.  Planners served those elites in many ways, including designing fortifications, acting as "regimenters", setting out locations for civic institutions and providing services in support of a healthy working class. The interests of the few who controlled economic and political power were paramount until recent time. It is a disturbing legacy for a profession whose most prominent theorists have called for greater representation of the interests of the marginalised.  While planners have a special relationship with community-based action and an interesting connection to the reform movement earlier in this century, the review of the full history of planning suggests that city planners have been, for the most part, the purveyors of benefits to the few. Thus, perhaps inevitably and unintentionally, community planning has continued to be a central player in assisting powerful interests. Do planners see their role in this way? Do they see themselves positioned or to have the means to change this role? Do they think that the profession is in a state of crisis? If so, what do they think has caused that crisis?  The review of the relationship of planners to power confirms that academics believe that planners are influenced by power. Some writers, such as Forester (1989) and Schon (1984), provide suggestions on how that relationship can be managed. Others, such as Gerecke (1977), believe that planners face a very uncertain future because of the continuous role that power plays in planning practice. Do practitioners think they work in a world affected by the political nature of decision-making?  During the past two decades, planning academics have criticised practitioners for applying inappropriate methods. Many of those academic writers have taken a Marxist, neo-Marxist or anarchist  perspective.  Meanwhile, practitioners  work in a largely  liberal democratic  environment. How do practitioners cope in their world? Do they find their work stressful? In the midst of academic criticism, do planners think they make a difference to society?  98  Planning theorists have sometimes called upon practitioners to take on a major role in changing the way society deals with the external forces which shape it. Friedmann (1987) called for planners to be in the vanguard of "social mobilization." Gerecke called repeatedly for planners to be more proactive. Recently, Dyck (1998: 39) wrote: . . . analysis of both the sustainability and the ecological planning literature, as well as the social mobilisation ideas . . . , have all emphasised the emerging primary importance of civil society and its base in community. This suggests the need for a significant restructuring of our ideas about how public, private and third sector institutions at all levels relate to the community, and how they can be reorganised to serve pluralistic community needs. Community planning professionals need to reflect on these matters in order to develop practical proposals for implementing the indicated structural changes, principally in government and in the private sector . . . These suggestions stress the 'reclaiming of political and economic spaces' from transnational corporate domination through the power of community-based social mobilisation and governmental reform. The calls, such as Dyck's, for major practitioner intervention may not reflect what is possible without leadership from a wide section of society. In all of the discussions by planning theorists about what role the planner should play, there is no corroborating evidence from the practitioners themselves. What do practitioners think of the influences affecting planning practice? What traditions do they subscribe to? What do they think of Friedmann's Social Mobilization model? What do they think of the views of Forester (1989) and Schon (1984)? The following chapter, Chapter 4, examines the current views that Canadian planners have about their profession and their roles as planners. It will address the questions raised in Chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 4 will also determine how planners see themselves in relation to maintaining the status quo and their connection to the politics of place. It will build upon the history of planning and cities by reviewing what planners think in the 1990s and whether they believe the profession of planning has a useful future. Together, Chapter 3 and 4 provide a summary of the nature of planning within the decision-making environment which surrounds it. Chapter 5 explores the implications upon the future of planning.  99  4. The State of Current Planning Practice  Canadian  A n analysis of the function and role of current Canadian planning is central to any discussion about the relevance of the profession in the face of the trends facing society and communities. Chapter 3, which examined the history of cities and planners, argues that planners have remained closely associated with the politics of place. Throughout, the role of self-interest in those decisions, initially in the form of elite interest and more laterally in the form of N I M B Y interests, has affected the work of planners. What planners do and how they do it has been questioned by planning theorists and citizens alike. But, no one has asked planners what do they think of their role?  Examination of what planners think of their existing and future role is critical to gain a better appreciation and a fuller understanding of what changes are needed to the planning profession to address the very recent challenges posed directly to planners by planning academics, in particular Forester, Friedmann and Schon, and others such as Maurice Strong and Jane Jacobs. Many of those challenges to planners were specific, clear and direct. In addition, an understanding of what planners think needs to be done should help planning theorists who have identified requirements for planning action. Without an understanding of what practitioners think, theory remains theory of planning rather than theory in planning. Gunton (1985) referred to the 'roller coaster' nature of planning as it seemed to follow the cycle of urban problem solving rather than leading it (Figure 2). As a result, community planners and demand for their input are always 'out of sync' with the current state of economic development. Planners appear to become involved 'after the fact'. Gunton suggested that the height of the problem solving effort occurred when policies were no longer relevant. His findings are crucial to a better understanding of the role of planning as seen by others. Gunton proposed that  100  00  c 3 > / ) <N 13 T3  sa6jawa l u a i q o j d  .a }UBAS|9J J a 6 u 0 | OU S 9 D I | 0 d  )  '  pajojwow  "5. ID  o  UJJO) s a B u e i p J O S 3 ) e d | s s | p A p e s j | e L u a i q o j d  LU _l O  Wo  _tg sapiiod  /  %  ...  ——-----  *  V /  / s- = = Z ox z  j a y e pa}uawa|dwi saioi|Od  LU  fl o  juaaido|9A9p A69iejjs uo!ie}u9W9|dLU|  fl-  N  3  — —  D_ LU X  i—  —  —  —  —  —  *>  \  —  t  "V  O  ~  3 O  s a i o i | o d j o uoi}B|naiJoj  a. o . o  ~  Lii8|qojd 10 sisA|Buv  *• ,  z  o S M O J 6 sjnssajd |Boni|Od  w LU LU _ l _1  co m  o o CC °-  Dt °-  ~  O O  L u a i q o j d j o uoi}iu6ooaj  onqnd  in cn  z  z  ^  ^  ^  xuodda  ONIAIOS  QNV  lAiaiaoyd d o  lAGiaoad dO  saBjSLue Luaiqojd  A±ISN31NI  A1ISN31NI  IOC.  planners must be more anticipatory, that they should be proactive in identifying problems and the solutions for those problems early in the cycle, and that planners should adopt more action oriented approaches to policy making. But no one has attempted to determine what planners, who are on the 'front lines' of planning action, think of their role and how they are influenced by forces surrounding them. Filion (1997: 13) believes that local government planners are limited by the constraints of their planning environment. He feels that their role is somewhat limited by the "core objectives of the civic service, including planning departments . . . (which) provide services according to the established mandate and to assure the implementation of policies adopted by council." B y identifying two "imperatives", the electoral and fiscal imperatives, which he believes "narrow planners' possible range of action," Filion concludes that "municipal planning has a tendency to stay the course and to be perceived as lacking creativity." A comparison in this Chapter of the attitudes and views of consulting planners and municipal government planners sheds more light on Filion's views.  4.1 In search of identity As discussed in Chapter 3, community planners have experienced and continue to experience a troubling and controversial heritage. It is a heritage of mixed ancestry and changing perspective. The one period of time when community planners appeared to have found their identity and purpose at the turn of the century was quickly lost to new ambitions and new interests. Today, planners appear to continue to struggle with the role of their profession, the perception of their work by others and the relevance of their work.  Within the organisational world of most offices, committees, governments and communities, including those where many community planners do their planning, rules and codified action set out expected procedure. Such expectations are no less relevant to the actions of community planners, especially local government planners, who find themselves in structures that have been established by others who have set the processes and codified the procedures for decisionmaking (Filion 1997). Given this often overlooked reality, several questions should be posed to 102  those who advocate wholesale change. Those questions include the following: How much control do community planners really have over their environments of practice? How much control over their agendas do they believe they have? How much criticism will a community planner take before 'throwing in the towel', 'throwing up her hands', or 'switching careers'? How much singular leadership will a community planner be able to show in the face of structures which may not endorse such action? Why do we expect community planners to be different from others when breaking the unwritten rules of the day may mean losing a job, status or influence? These questions are basic realities of professional life. They are not necessarily questions of ethics or morality where the answer might be clearer. Instead, these questions relate to rules which have been accepted by the larger institution where the community planner may reside. Too often, the uncharted shoals of real-world issues are left for the community planner to face and discover without any appropriate guideposts. Community planners need to be better prepared and better equipped to deal with the very political nature of the practice, and the requirements that are necessary not only to survive in the environment of planning, but also to prosper and flourish (Forester 1989). Practice needs to be better understood before community planning can be enhanced (Grant 1994). This Chapter provides such an understanding by reviewing the thoughts, concerns, and opinions of members of the Canadian Institute of Planners.  What do community planners think are their requirements? What do community planners think about their work? What do community planners think they should be doing? What philosophy should form the core of the profession? Should the professional body that represents a large cross-section of Canadian planners take a lead role? What do its members think that role could be?  The following sections will answer those questions. Without a grounding in what Canadian professional planners think and how their profession is 'constructed', any discourse on Gertler's challenge to CIP to explore the requirements for "a new development model" and Strong's call for planners to move to "centre stage" will be academic. Planners need to be consulted about 103  their views on the nature and status of planning in Canada in order to determine if the profession is capable or desirous of responding to the challenges facing the profession. In order to answer those questions and consider a response to those challenges, the following sections examine the survey results from a questionnaire undertaken in early 1994. The survey seeks the opinion of Canadian planners in a variety of matters, including the role of the profession, the nature of planning, the influence of planning theory, and the role which CIP should play. A total of 133 questionnaires were returned in a completed form. The return rate represents 4% of all Provisional and Full members of CIP at the time. It is important to note that, of the 133 responses, none indicated that they did not understand the meaning of my questions. A l l 133 responses were filled in varying detail. Most respondents, however, took the time to fill in most questions and a very large number (70%) took time to provide detailed written reasons for their responses. Several respondents complemented the researcher on the questionnaire format and purpose. Several did indicate that they did not understand the language used by Schon, Friedmann and Forester in the questions which examined selected planning theory. Of those, a few expressed frustration with the ideas and planning theory in general. For the most part, however, the respondents appeared to be willing and eager to share their views.  4.2 What Canadian professional planners think Some will argue that anyone can be a community planner; that community planning has no ownership. Some planning academics, such as Gerecke (1991), have proposed that planners have ill-served their communities and have implied that much of what the 'profession' has 'produced' has been of inconsequential value. Others (Jacobs 1993, Nozick 1992 and Sewell 1993) have cast many professional planners as part of the elite that has destroyed many communities. Who are these planners and what do they see as their primary role?  This section reviews what Provisional and Full members of the Canadian Institute of Planners think about their profession. It sheds light on the difficulty and opportunities planners wrestle 104  with in their practice, particularly the turmoil they face between working for beneficial change and serving political systems. Except where noted, percentages given relate to the overall number of respondents (i.e., percent out of 133 respondents). Given that not all respondents answered every question, the overall percentages reflect trends in thinking, providing a sense of what the profession thinks. In some instances, where noted, percentages reflect the percentage of those who responded to that particular question.  4.2.1 Some background about the respondents From 502 questionnaires (see: Appendix 1) sent out to Full and Provisional members of the Canadian Institute of Planners, 133 were completed and returned (a return of 27 percent). Responses came from across the country in a ratio that corresponds to the CIP membership numbers.  O f the total respondents, 74% were Full Members and 26% were Provisional  Members. This compares with the actual 1994 CIP membership ratio of 67:33, respectively*. That slight disparity in ratios and a review of the position of those responding (three quarters are senior administrators, senior staff or middle staff and few (6%) are junior staff) suggests that the respondents are biased in favour of those with a longer planning work experience (i.e. those who have more experience appear to have a higher response rate).  The respondents are a seasoned group (average of 11 years as a CIP member and an average of 14 years of practice) representing a broad cross-section of practice (respondents identified 13 different titles which best described their role in the profession). Titles mentioned in order from most frequent to least mentioned were: planner (20%), consultant (16%) (note: while 23% indicated that they "worked in the consulting sector," some consultants identified themselves as a planner or director rather than as a consultant when asked "what do you do?"), manager (10%), director (10%), policy planner (6%), environmental planner (5%), developer (3%), infrastructure planner (3%), social planner (2%), rural-regional planner (2%), professor (2%),  * Sample selection is described in Section 1.5. The questionnaire was translated into French by the official translators for CIP. The French version was mailed to those CIP members whose names were selected from the Quebec affiliate of CIP. 105  administrator (2%), park planner (1%). They worked for a range of employers with the majority being employed by local government (36%), consulting company (19%), regional government (8%), provincial/territorial government (8%) and a small sample employed in the development industry (2%), university (2%), federal government (2%), and non-profit sector (1.5%). No respondents reported employment in aboriginal government. A total of 11% were not currently practising planning. Of that total, nearly half are in non-planning positions. The majority of those respondents indicated they continued to belong to CIP to remain in touch with the profession. Three respondents indicated that they could not find s