Social Town Planning

Clara Greed

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134692408
• Topic: Ciencias físicas
• Subtopic: Geografía

Many issues such as access for the disabled, childcare facilities, environmental matters, and ethnic minority issues are excluded from town planning considerations by planning authorities. This book introduces the concept of `social town planning' to integrate planning policy and practices with the cultural and social issues of the people they are planning for. Part 1 provides background on the development of a social dimension to the predominantly physical, land use based, British town planning system. Part 2 investigates a representative selection of minority planning topics, in respect of gender, race, age and disability, cross-linked to the implications for mainstream policy areas such as housing, rural planning and transport. Part 3 discusses the likely influence of a range of global and European policy initiatives and organisations in changing the agenda of British town planning. Planning for healthy cities, sustainability, social cohesion, and equity are discussed. Part 4 looks at `the problem' from a cultural perspective, arguing that a great weakness in the British system, resulting in ugly and impractical urban design, has been the lack of concern among planners with social activities and cultural diversity. Alternative, more culturally inclusive approaches to planning are presented which might transcend the social/spatial dichotomy, such as urban time planning. Concluding that the process of planning must change, the authors ague that the culture and composition of the planning profession must particularly change to be more representative and reflective of the people they are `planning for', in terms of gender, race and minority composition.

Part I
Context

1 Introducing social town planning

Clara H. Greed

Planning revisited

The purpose of this book is to investigate ‘social planning’ with reference chiefly to the ‘social aspects of planning’ agenda within British town planning. This, inevitably, leads into a consideration of issues such as urban governance, social policy, inequality, sustainability and planning theory. This book develops further the theme of investigating the social construction of urban realities and thus of social town planning which was introduced in earlier work by the editor (Greed, 1994) and which has long intrigued the various contributors (for example, R.H. Williams, 1975, inter alia). Nowadays it may be argued that there is not one ‘town planning’ but many new ‘plannings’, each with its own agenda, devotees, and priorities, including, for example, environmental planning; urban design planning, Euro planning; and market-led urban renewal planning (cf. Greed, 1996a; Greed and Roberts, 1998). One of the most dynamic, changing and controversial of the ‘plannings’ is what may be broadly termed ‘social town planning’. There has been a proliferation of demands and policy proposals to meet the needs of minority interests and community groups, which the present scope and nature of statutory town planning appears unable, and ill-equipped, to meet.

This book is aimed at good second year students and above who are studying town planning, urban geography and social policy, whilst providing debate for more advanced readers. Those readers new to the subject who require historical background are referred to chapter 11, ‘Urban social perspectives on planning’ in Introducing Town Planning (Greed, 1996b), which provides an introductory summary of the issues, and to chapters 7–9 of Women and Planning (Greed, 1994) which deals with the issues in greater depth. In a nutshell, much of the debate over the role of planning over the last 150 years has revolved around the question of whether it is possible to achieve ‘salvation by bricks’: that is, whether social problems can be ‘solved’ by redesigning the built environment (a reformist viewpoint), or whether such efforts are simply useless, ‘like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic’ (a more socialist view), because, it is held, more radical change is needed within society itself before cities will change. ‘Environmental determinism’ is the term used, often pejoratively, to describe the planner’s attempts to play God (cf. Newman, 1973; A. Coleman, 1985). In contrast, nowadays one is more likely to find that ‘space’ (the physical layout) is seen as a secondary consideration in some branches of social town planning, and greater emphasis is put upon ‘aspatial’ (social) urban policy in respect of health, sustainability, inner-city regeneration, and community empowerment. But many would still argue that ‘space matters’ (McDowell, 1997), especially for women seeking to negotiate the city of man, and the disabled whose urban mobility and access is limited by unnecessary steps and poor design.

DEFINITIONS AND CONNOTATIONS

Social town planning and social planners

But what is social town planning? And who are the social town planners? Arguably, there is no one definitive answer to the question ‘what is social town planning?’ for relatively speaking, as with all town planning, ‘it can be anything you want it to be’ (as discussed in Greed, 1996b, ch. 1).

‘Social town planning’ may broadly be defined as any movement to introduce policies that take into account more fully the needs of the diversity of human beings who live in our towns and cities, (which many would argue mainstream town planning has failed to do). The need for ‘putting the social back into planning’ must be seen within the context of a statutory town planning system in Britain that was set up to deal with physical rather than social issues. Typically, emphasis is put upon ‘land-use’ planning, primarily as reflected in land-use zoning and the creation of spatially focused development plans. Likewise, town planning law has been obsessed with proving ‘change of [land] use’ rather than facilitating the way in which people ‘use land’. The crux of the book pivots around this physical/social dualism, and all the various contributions are united by an underlying consideration of the unequal spatial/aspatial balance within existing town planning.

This physical/social dualism has been particularly highlighted by the ‘women and planning’ movement, which has sought to introduce more gender-sensitive approaches to town planning (Greed, 1994; WGSG, 1997). It has been demonstrated that the planning process is not ‘neutral’ but tends to benefit those groups dominant in society itself. Attempts to include ‘social’ policies on childcare, for example, in a development plan are likely to be met with the DETR response that the policy in question is ultra vires, because it is ‘not a land-use matter’. But, as will be seen, a whole range of other agendas and issues have also fallen foul of the ultra vires trap, especially in respect of policies that reflect the needs of ethnic-minority groups, the elderly and disabled. An upsurge of concern with ‘equality’, ‘minorities’, and related ‘isms’ over the last twenty years has moved/forced town planners to accept a wider range of social considerations when ‘doing town planning’.

Many commentators consider that town planners, along with other built environment professionals, have been somewhat reluctant and slow in their response to minority issues (as commented upon by the various contributors). Much of the initiative for change has come not from the planners themselves, but from community and minority pressure groups at grass-roots level. In spite of the growth in publications, publicity and conference events in this field, there is little evidence that planners are ‘walking the talk’. New legislation, PPGs (DoE/DETR Planning Policy Guidance Notes), and regulations have not been rushed through to meet the town planning demands of women, ethnic minorities and the disabled, and one seldom finds more than a short, ‘obligatory’ token mention of the needs of these groups in central and local government planning documentation (cf. DoE, 1997a).

This half-hearted response to ‘minority’ needs contrasts markedly with earlier attempts to undertake social town planning in relation to meeting the presumed needs of the ‘working classes’. For many years ‘class’ alone appeared to be the main consideration and organising concept in delineating the ‘social aspects of planning’. This was epitomised in the more socialist times of the post-war reconstruction period in the emphasis upon ‘planning for the working class’, which served to legitimate the questionable nature of much planning policy, such as slum-clearance, New Town building and regional policy. Significantly, no one cried ‘ultra vires’ (or said, ‘class – that’s not a land-use matter’) when huge chunks of our inner cities were demolished and their inhabitants put into neighbourhood units in new town developments planned to generate ‘community spirit’, but many complained about the abuse of political power, legitimated by academic social theory, in such urban pillage (Dennis, 1972).

Town planning has always contained a mixture of components, some of which, such as economic and political elements, cannot be categorised as purely ‘social’ or indeed ‘physical’ in nature. Planning is a political process, informed by a range of ideologies (cf. Kirk, 1980; Healey, 1991; Montgomery and Thornley, 1990). Urban social theory, which influences social planning, is seldom neutral. Planning is inevitably ‘political’ because it is concerned with land and property, and the allocation of scarce resources. It has therefore been scrutinised by those concerned with understanding ‘capitalism’, and class and power structures within society. Social town planning has frequently been associated with ‘the Left’, be it in the policies of the Greater London Council at its height (GLC, 1984) or as part of full-blown Eastern European state socialism, but ‘planning’ has attracted interest from those right across the political spectrum. Second, at the implementatory level, the planning process is a political activity because it is concerned with the allocation of scarce resources, the planner being seen as acting as urban manager or social policy-maker (Simmie, 1974). Third, the planning process is extremely political at the local-area-plan level, where community politics and grass-roots activity thrives, as will be illustrated by various case studies.

Who, though, are the ‘social planners’? In the past many ‘urban social problems’ seemed suitable specifically for treatment by town planners, because it was imagined that one could draw a line around the ‘bad area’ and bombard it with physical planning remedies. However, as will be seen, many of the social issues of concern today are not spatially confined to one area. Whilst so-called ethnic minority areas might be physically identifiable, gender and disability issues occur everywhere and cannot be contained by ‘special area’ policy. For example, access policy requires a city-wide approach to implementation, wheresoever barriers to mobility exist across the whole built environment and within the attitudes of the population as a whole. Likewise, the increasing concern with environmental sustainability cannot be spatially limited but socially affects everyone on the planet. Nowadays there are a range of other ‘social’ planning issues that affect the whole city, which are not necessarily associated with deprivation or ‘social problems’ but rather with greater affluence, such as the growth of tourism, the development of the arts and ‘culture’ and millennium project planning. Thus a whole range of different types of policy-makers and professionals are involved in ‘planning’ issues, many of whom would not see themselves as town planners. Because ‘planning for sustainability’ is such a prominent issue in many of the chapters of this book, as it has become increasingly linked with ‘social’, rather than purely ‘environmental’ issues, there follows a short explanation of the term ‘sustainability’.

Sustainability

The influence of the sustainability movement on social town planning merits a digression because it is a concept that informs the approach taken by many of the contributors. Sustainability is a key consideration at all levels of social planning nowadays. At first sight, ‘sustainability’ in Britain at least, may be associated primarily with environmental planning policy, and the relationship between the ‘social’ and ‘environmental’ agendas often appears unresolved and ambiguous at best, totally separate at worst. However, internationally, it may be defined as having four elements: to conserve the stock of natural assets; avoid damaging the regenerative capacity of ecosystems; achieve greater social and economic equality and equity; and avoid imposing risks and costs on future generations (Blowers, 1993). Equity may be seen as a further development of the concept of ‘equality’ pioneered by minority groups, and includes the idea of equality both between people, and within human relationships and dealings, not least within the political and economic context of world development. Such equity planning clearly overlaps with concepts of social town planning, but combines a strong spatial component. These principles were embodied in the Bruntland Report (WCED, 1987) and in the Earth Summit in Rio, in 1992. Following Rio, the Agenda 21 programme was established, requiring all signatory states to draw up national plans on sustainability. In Britain, the Department of the Environment produced in 1994 the policy document Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy (DoE, 1994a). Likewise there have been a series of EC (European Commission) Directives increasing environmental controls within the European member states, and a range of federal and state-level measures introduced in North America. However, in some north European countries (not least Sweden; Guinchard, 1997) environmental impact analysis has also been strongly linked to the measurement of the social impact of planning policy, and greater emphasis is given to equity, especially gender equality, as an integral component of sustainability (Skjerve, 1993).

Environmental assessment and environmental impact studies are now commonplace in most developed countries in respect of evaluating the implications of large-scale urban or rural development. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 required local government bodies in each member-state across the world to produce ‘Local Agenda 21’ initiatives which translated the overall objectives (UNCED, 1992). Attention has been given to formulating urban development policies which seek to reduce pollution, reducing use of fossil fuels and other natural resources, in conjunction with consideration of the health implications of such policies and the accessibility dimensions. As a result, town planning policies based on meeting the needs of the car are being replaced by a greater emphasis upon control of the car, encouragement of public transport and reducing the need for people to travel in the first place. Policy measures include promoting urban containment, discouraging decentralisation and dispersal of land uses and facilities and encouraging higher density urban districts which contain a balanced diversity of facilities, amenities, and land uses, so enabling greater local economic and social sufficiency, and thus urban sustainability.

Clearly, many of these issues have social implications and dimensions, some planned and some unforeseen. Whilst welcoming the greater emphasis upon nurturing the environment, some among minority groups are wary of restrictive transport policies in situations where, because of the decentralisation, demolition and destruction sanctioned by previous generations of planners, the only shops for essential food shopping are now out of town hypermarkets that require the use of a private car or a long, arduous journey by infrequent public transport. Now that cities have been replanned around the car, many are concerned about the social implications of putting the clock back before implementing major relocational policies for retail, school, and employment locations. Out-of-town clearance on the scale of 1950s inner urban area clearance and relocation, through market forces or state intervention, may yet prove the logical solution. Thus the old ‘red’ (socialist) agenda of much social town planning has increasingly become replaced with a new ‘green’ (environmental) agenda that challenges not only social inequality but also personal lifestyles and urban culture itself.

Contents

Style and components

‘Social town planning’ is a potentially enormous field, without clear boundaries or demarcations, and key elements, such as ‘women and planning’, do not fit into existing statutory planning compartments. In these days of post-structural ‘diversity’ one feels freer to mix different components from a diverse range of realms than was possible under traditional taxonomy. This book seeks to capture key aspects of the diverse and evolving manifestations of social town planning. The contributions are presented in a variety of styles. Because some of the issues discussed have affected individual contributors in their private and professional lives, a personal style is used in some of the chapters. Contributors come from a wide range of academic realms and professional fields. Depending on its appropriateness to the subject being presented, some contributors include policy guidance in their chapters, whereas others concentrate upon analysis and the development of conceptual perspectives. This mixture reflects the diversity of the discourse of social town plannning.

In summary, Part I provides background on the nature of social town planning from both a historical and a current professional planning perspective. Part II investigates a representative selection of (so-called) minority issues and (what are popularly seen as) social planning topics, including gender, race and age, but cross-links these components with mainstream planning issues such as housing, rural planning and transport. Whilst Part II looks at individual topics at the ‘micro’ level (albeit with ‘macro-level’ city-wide policy implications), Part III, in contrast, takes a wider perspective, discussing a range of global and European organisations and initiatives which are, in effect, promoting social town planning objectives. These overarch British town planning, and may offer means of escaping and resolving the spatial/social impasse. Part IV initially st...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Illustrations
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Part I: Context
• Part II: Groups and Issues
• Part III: New Policy Horizons
• Part IV: Cultural Perspectives On Planning
• Bibliography