Planning of undefined becoming: First encounters of planners beyond the plan

Abstract

Since the 1980s and due to the ongoing complexity and diffuseness of global networked societies, planners have tried to move beyond classic technocratic and/or sociocratic ideas of planning towards new approaches, which address the multiplicity and fuzziness of our perceptions and actions in time and space. Innovative ideas have been developed concerning discursive, collaborative, informal and post-policy planning, as well as relational geography, multi-planar, non-linear and actor-relational approaches. Nonetheless, techno- and sociocratic approaches remain dominant conceptions for much teaching and practice in Europe and elsewhere. This is partly because these innovative contributions of the past 20 or 30 years have been fragmented and isolated. However, they can also be regarded as the beginning of a bigger transition towards what we call a movement of ‘planning of undefined becoming’. In this article, we will sketch a framework in which these innovative ideas about the planner’s perceptions of fuzzy, complex and co-evolving space and time will in some way be interrelated. From this background, we will also critically reflect on some planning experiments in practice inspired reciprocally and incrementally by these ideas, developing applications for practitioners along the way.

On the Necessity of an Integrated, Participative and Adaptive Approach to Sustainable Urban Environmental Quality Planning

“…However, it is not a panacea: representation cannot be complete and is known to stall decision-making (Kaza, 2006;Rydin & Pennington, 2000). Adaptive planning is commonly associated with resilience to disturbing events, but has a pro-active connotation as well (Boelens & de Roo, 2014), which is emphasized here: the need to foresee future planning challenges and take appropriate action beforehand.…”

Educating Boundary Crossing Planners: Evidence for Student Learning in the Multistakeholder Regional Learning Environment

“…Therefore, we suggest authentic learning environments in planning education to experiment with the allowance of "learning surprises" (Scardamalia et al 2012) to gain insight into what students really learn from working and learning with other stakeholders. Allowing such surprises and trying to address these in learning objectives and assessment strategies could support students in their learning to plan for the "undefined becoming" (Boelens and De Roo 2014).…”

“…Planning processes worldwide have transitioned from an exclusive governmental affair to complex, coevolutionary multistakeholder processes (Albrechts 2013;De Roo and Silva 2010). Planning as a profession responded, and still responds, to these changes by moving beyond more structuralist planning approaches, toward developing and applying approaches that try to address the "wicked" character of current issues and processes (Albrechts 2013;Boelens and De Roo 2014;Booher and Innes 2002;Boonstra and Boelens 2011;Forester 1999;Healey 1997;Rittel and Webber 1973). All these approaches share the idea that tackling planning issues requires taking into consideration the perspectives of multiple actors with diverse backgrounds, values, and interests and who have multiple understandings and interpretations of reality (Albrechts 2013;Domingo and Beunen 2012;Healey 1997Healey , 2003.…”

“…A unique feature of the RLE is that student learning is embedded in a real multistakeholder participatory planning process, aimed at stimulating both student learning and "regional learning." As such, the RLE represents the current planning profession (Albrechts 2013;Boelens and De Roo 2014). It requires students to "cross boundaries" between multiple disciplines and multiple perspectives.…”

Mapping trajectories of becoming: four forms of behaviour in co-housing initiatives

“…Various planning theorists argue that this societal complexity asks for planning to acknowledge non-linearity, interrelatedness, diversity and multiplicity (Hillier, 2007;Van Wezemael, 2010;Zuidema, 2012). They turn to variegated complexity and post-structuralist theories (such as actor-network theory and assemblage theory), and elaborate on spatial planning as being entangled within a plurality of agencies, including but not limited to those of the state (Hillier, 2007: 10;Boelens, 2009;Boelens and de Roo, 2014).A manifestation of such hybrid planning networks, characterised by resource interdependency, can be found in the practice of co-housing. Framing co-housing as private residential communities, attention has been paid to the institutional, organisational and communal features of already existing groups (Williams, 2005;Vestbro, 2010;Chiodelli and Baglione, 2014;Chiodelli, 2015;Jarvis, 2015).…”