Despite concerns about the privatization of urban planning practices, there is little known about the professional actors involved in this restructuring. Private-sector consultants, though beholden to the same professional standards as public-sector employees, face competing pressures of an entrepreneurial fee-for-service business model. This article examines the role of planning consultants in shaping public policy agendas, by analyzing the redevelopment of Downsview Park in Toronto, Ontario. Drawing from interview and archival data, I find that private-sector planning consultants had influence in prioritizing policy agendas by propagating the need for sped-up processes and allowing landowners to “pay for priority.” The fluidity of professionals between firms, sectors, and projects reinforced the perceived value and neutrality of consultant expertise. These strategies worked to erode the differences between public- and private-sector planning processes, resulting in a high degree of influence for development interests.

No abstract

No abstract

This Interface emerged from a symposium on the future of the planning profession held at the University of Reading in September 2019. This reflected on present new challenges concerning the means, political standing, and substantive goals of planning across the globe. Some issues discussed are longer-run and continually shifting. The conditions and tasks faced by planning have morphed, as have the types of people and sectoral balance involved in planning. Renewed scrutiny over the environment, quality of development, and its accountability to the public it seeks to serve, are active topics in the UK. Pointedly, concerns over a public sector planning that has been weakened by a decade of austerity, and destabilised by serial changes are in the forefront of peoples' minds, with advocates of further deregulation and reform currently holding court (e.g., Airey & Doughty, 2020). With such changes ongoing now is a good time to consider the future of the profession. The essays that follow largely address issues for the profession in the UK but are also more widely applicable.Despite a growth and diversification in planning activity, the profession in the UK is often undervalued with persistent public distrust in planners and the system. The Raynsford Report examining the planning system in England recently argued that "broader civil society consensus around the need for planning has fragmented, and many people are simply unclear about what the system is for" (2018, p. 23). The regulatory system has been the subject of continual structural change and this is likely to continue in years to come. The profession is once again under assault with Hugh Ellis (2020, n.p.) recently forecasting "the endgame" for the English planning system and "the ideals which founded the planning movement." As a result, planning's operating environment is breeding uncertainty, and it is more challenging to be a planner in such circumstances. A lack of transparency in the UK adds to the gap between the planners and the planned, as well as between different forms, sectors, spatial scales, or types of 'planner.'The issues taken up by the wide-ranging contributions below reflect the ideas for progressive change found across the profession and the breadth of concerns being aired. Numerous voices from within planning are now talking about the 'future of the profession' to varying degrees of acuity. These debates cohere around some key threads: holding up for scrutiny how the planning profession thinks about corresponding to the changing, diversifying environment; how to more effectively address the substantive challenges faced by planning; improving the state of public understanding and engagement; and lastly how actors involved in planning -notably the Universities and the CONTACT Gavin Parker

No abstract