IntroductionI've often been asked, 'so what is anyway?' As I suspect with much of the planning fraternity, this question usually elicits a vague response about coordinating how society interacts with and within built and natural environments. To more academically attuned ears I might even venture to present the Royal Town Planning Institute's (RTPI) more thought-provoking, but equally ambiguous, assertion that planning is 'the mediation of space; making of place'. Neither explanation normally satisfies my interlocutor. I am thus compelled to list examples of common practitioner activities. Unfortunately, as the list lengthens so too shortens the tolerance of my quizzer as they generally fail to see how diverse activities such as transport planning, environmental assessment and community development can be legitimately held together beneath the rubric of 'planning'. If I can retain their interest a little further, I'll typically relate a litany of objectives. Somewhere in here I'll describe how planners act as facilitators who provide expert knowledge in assisting stakeholders reconcile different perspectives on a planning matter. Should I be probed on what a 'planning matter' comprises, I'm liable to find myself circling back to my initial vague response or falling onto the bureaucratic crutch of 'what is specified by policy and regulation'. Yet we as practitioners and academics intrinsically feel that there is more to planning than this. Nevertheless, trying to somehow convey what this elusive 'more' entails is commonly a challenge. This Viewpoint offers a perspective on identifying this 'more' by attempting to answer the all-too-often uncomfortable question 'what is planning?'1What is planning?The literature abounds with different conceptions of what planning involves. To properly understand them, it is necessary to appreciate the journey planning has taken as a discipline. Some trace planning's lineage to public health, some to engineering, and others to architecture. However, there is a general consensus that modern 'planning' emerged as a response to the appalling living conditions of the late Industrial Revolution (Hall and Tewdwr-Jones, 2011; Cullingworth et al., 2014). Such early ideas about planning did not differentiate it from the 'art' of design and viewed it as essentially 'architecture writ large' (Taylor, 1998, 159). This outlook conceived planning as the designing of blueprints for the desired state of an area. Here, planning was seen to have far-reaching control over the evolution of society's relationship with the space in which it was embedded. However, with a growing recognition of urban complexity, this morphologically and aesthetically centred view became increasing untenable as sociological understandings of space gained academic respect (Harvey, 2010). Buoyed by the growing dominance of positivism, planning became ever more focused on 'systems' and how to scientifically evaluate and determine the optimal choice in a series of alternatives (McLoughlin, 1969). Thus the focus of planning moved from the design of space to mapping and predicting the complex processes that shape spaces. With this move, planning shifted category from 'art' to 'science'. However, the dominance of systems thinking was not unanimously welcomed, with several prominent thinkers on planning arguing that the preoccupation with scientific methods was losing sight of normative goals (Hirt and Zahm, 2012). Hence emerged a movement in planning that conceived planning as 'advocating' on behalf of those who live, work and use the spaces being planned (Davidoff, 1996). This movement ultimately laid the foundations for a philosophically sophisticated drive towards bottom-up inclusion and consensus seeking in planning (Forester, 1999; Healey, 2005). Here, planning is essentially viewed as 'managing' the decision-making process. This 'collaborative' approach ostensibly dominates planning practice today, at least in the UK and Ireland. …
Read full abstract