Stadtplanung als Disziplin. Alltag und Selbstverständnis von Planerinnen und Planern

Levin-Keitel, Meike; Othengrafen, Frank; Behrend, Lukas

doi:10.2478/rara-2019-0018

Cited by 33 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A forerunner is Rydin’s (2013) excellent use of ANT to frame her study of environmental planners’ epistemic culture in a case of regulating commercial development. Another is the recent DFG Project that studied planning practices in mid-sized German cities (Levin-Keitel et al, 2019; Othengrafen and Levin-Keitel, 2019). 28 What we can learn from such studies is quite different from what the “practice movement” tells us, and more research like this is needed for relevant (something) planning theories.…”

Section: Planning Theory and Practice14mentioning

confidence: 99%

On planning, planning theories, and practices: A critical reflection

Alexander

2022

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The futility of defining planning suggests that there is no planning as a recognizable practice. Sociology of knowledge definitions imply three kinds of planning practices: (1) Generic “planning”—what people do when they are planning; (2) Knowledge-centered “something” (e.g., spatial) planning; and (3) Real planning practiced in specific contexts, from metro-regional planning for Jakarta to transportation planning for the Trans-Europe Network, and enacted in general contexts, for example, informal- or Southern planning. Planning theories are linked to different practices: generic “planning” theories and “something” (e.g., regional, community, environmental, or Southern) planning theories. Selected topics illustrate the “planning” theory discourse and spatial planning theories are briefly reviewed. Three generations of planning practice studies are reviewed: the first, a-theoretical; the second, the “practice movement,” who studied practice for their own theorizing; and the third, informed by practice theories. Five books about planning show how their planning theorist authors understand planning practice. While recognizing planning as diverse practices, they hardly apply “planning” theory to planning practices. “Planning” theories are divorced from enacted planning practices, “something” (e.g., spatial) planning theories include constructive adaptations of “planning” theories and paradigms, but knowledge about real planning practices is limited. Implications from these conclusions are drawn for planning theory, education, and practices.

show abstract

Section: Planning Theory and Practice14mentioning

confidence: 99%

On planning, planning theories, and practices: A critical reflection

Alexander

2022

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This understanding of planning as 'the guardian' of the common good is associated with the corresponding core tasks (i.e., provision of affordable housing, etc. ), which are also largely defined and regulated in the German Building Code (Levin-Keitel, Othengrafen, & Behrend, 2019).…”

Section: Various Fields Of Action: Planners As Generalists In the Public Realmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planners between the Chairs: How Planners (Do Not) Adapt to Transformative Practices

Othengrafen

Levin-Keitel

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though the turn to practice is widely accepted in the field of urban planning, the practices of planners are empirically largely unexplored. Looking at the daily routines and practices of urban planners thus allows a deeper insight into what planning is, and how planning practices are related to innovation and transformation. To do so, we start from the assumption that behaviour is a constellation of practices, including certain activities, a set of choices and actions, patterns of behaviour or forms of interaction that is organised in a certain space or context by common understandings and rules. By conducting an online survey among planners in medium-sized German cities, we first identified a wide range of planning practices and activities in general. In a second step, we conducted a statistical cluster analysis resulting in six types of planners: (1) the ‘local-specific analysts,’ (2) the ‘experienced generalists,’ (3) the ‘reactive pragmatists,’ (4) the ‘project-oriented planners,’ (5) the ‘compensatory moderators,’ and (6) the ‘innovative designers.’ Each cluster has specific practices and activities, linked to characteristic value-sets, role interpretations and self-perceptions that might help explain the differences with regard to innovation and transformation. From the identified six groups or clusters of planners, only two clusters more or less consequently aim at innovation, experimentation and new approaches. One cluster is dedicated to collaborative practices whereas traditional practices predominate in three clusters at least, mainly because of legal requirements. This is the result of an increasing ‘formalisation’ of land-use planning, making planners focus on technical and formal practices, and, at the same time, lead to the reduced ‘attention’ to and implementation of conceptual approaches or ‘necessary’ transformative practices, including proactive approaches and strategic coordination with regard to sustainable urban development, but also comprising experiments, real labs or social innovations.

show abstract