Urban
Planning 540:
PLANNING THEORY:
Final Study Guide
Fall Semester, 2001 |
|
|
Last modified: August
31, 2001
The final exam will be a closed-book exam (no books, no notes), consisting
of both short answer questions and a brief essay question.
Note regarding this study guide: This
is NOT a complete list of terms, ideas, and questions that may be
on the exam, though it should provide a fairly good idea of what to expect.
Terms and Concepts
URBAN AND ECONOMIC PROCESSES
physical determinism
property contradiction
market failure
public goods
externalities
STYLES OF PLANNING
comprehensive planning
"rational model" of planning
incremental planning
advocacy planning
strategic planning
equity planning
communicative action planning
TYPOLOGIES OF CITIES AND URBANIZATION
city
metropolis
region
megalopolis
hinterland
suburb
technoburb
MOVEMENTS AND PROTOTYPES
City Beautiful Movement (and the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago)
Garden City (Ebenezer Howard)
Radiant City (Le Corbusier)
Broadacres (Frank Lloyd Wright)
the Regional Planning Association of America
regionalism
Modernism
New Urbanism
A FEW NAMES:
Lewis Mumford
Rexford Tugwell
Ebenezer Howard
Le Corbusier
Frank Lloyd Wright
Daniel Burnham
Frederick Law Olmsted
Robert Moses
Baron Haussmann
Jane Jacobs
Clarence Stein
Patrick Geddes
Benton MacKaye
Albert Speer
Abraham Levitt (Levittown)
Norman Krumholz
Andres Duany (New Urbanist architect)
A FEW PLACES:
Radburn, NJ
Letchworth and Welwyn, UK
Seaside, FL
Celebration, FL
the "White City" (1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago)
A few questions to consider. Please note
that some of these questions below are far broader than one can easily
answer in a short essay, so that the actual exam questions will be more
modest.
-
Comprehensive planning has been alternately endorsed and rejected by planners.
Define comprehensive planning and briefly discuss its development in the
history of planning and planning theory. Is it still the dominant
approach to planning?
-
Explain (briefly) what Lindblom means when he advocates for "successive
limited comparisons" as a planning approach. Is this really a form
of planning, or is it a rejection of planning?
-
Outline the characteristic assumptions or justifications associated with
the 4 following approaches to planning theory: traditional, advocacy, equity,
incremental.. (Fainstein/Fainstein) (An easier alternative
to this question would ask about associated political commitments, and
maybe only ask for 2 or 3 of the four)
-
Fishman states (Urban Utopias p. 61): " Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd
Wright were both intensely concerned with the preservation of the family
in an industrial society, but here as elsewhere they adopted diametrically
opposite strategies." How did these visions differ?
-
What are the key points in Jane Jacob's critique of planning and where
does it fall short of providing a new model of intervention?
Is she accurate in lumping together 3 schools of planning thought as "Radiant
Garden City Beautiful?"
-
What does Fishman mean when he describes the city plans of Howard, Wright
and Le Corbusier as "social thought in 3 dimensions."
-
Fishman asserts that in providing "manifestoes for an urban revolution"
Wright, Howard, and Le Corbusier set out a classical triad and vocabulary
of basic forms that can be used to define the whole range of choices available
to the planner. How would you characterize the key elements or "dominant
values" represented by each of these visions?
-
What are the most important features differentiating America's current
experience of suburbia with that of the immediate post war period?
-
What key themes for the future of America and its cities gained expression
in the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893.
-
Can planning theory, now or in the past, be said to have a dominant paradigm?
a) Trace the history of planning theory from the beginning of the century
in terms of what paradigms were widely adopted. b) Relate these paradigms
to the socio-political context in which planning was operating. c) During
the time when comprehensive rationality (or the rational model) was particularly
influential, is it accurate to say that it constituted a dominant paradigm?
d) What is the current situation?
-
Planners have traditionally been able to define themselves professionally
and politically based on where they draw the line between proper government
activities and private interests. However, this may be increasingly
complicated in an era of blurred public-private boundaries , of public-private
partnerships, of quasi-private public authorities (such as port authorities),
and of non-profits (the "third sector"). In addition, planning graduates
increasing work in all three sectors, rather than just for local government.
Explain how the relationship of planners to the public-private boundaries
has changed in recent years. What political, economic and/or cultural
factors have shaped this changing relationship?
-
City and regional planning is a recent, interdisciplinary field that draws
heavily from other disciplines. Outline what you think are the basic
intellectual origins of the field. That is, from what other fields
does planning borrow its theories, its political beliefs and/or its tools
of analysis? Does this mix make for a powerful synergy, or instead
(as some have argued) simply create a confusing hodgepodge lacking a coherent
set of tools or best practices? (Do not hesitate to be critical of
planning where appropriate.) Finally, in which direction should planning
head in the future (e.g., more towards economics, architecture, social
work, public policy, business, etc.)?
-
Some authors (e.g., Forester, Healey, Innes) have promoted communicative-action
as a new paradigm to replace the antiquated rational-scientific model of
planning. Explain the supposed shortcomings of the old planning paradigm,
and the promise of communicative-based planning. Do you agree?
-
Planning theory can be divided into two general areas: substantive
planning theory and procedural planning theory. Elaborate on
this distinction, and give examples of each. Are there connections
between the two, or are these really two quite distinctive sets of theories?