Abstract
In Modern Urban Planning Theories, Shiwen Sun makes a laudable endeavour to depict a grand picture of modern urban planning theory in a broad sense, its meaning, structure, evolvement (perhaps in the form of the development of modern urban planning) and principle aspects. This is the first book in simplified Chinese that contains ‘planning theory’ in its title, and it still remains a small minority.
Modern Urban Planning Theories comprises five parts. In the first part, an introduction to modern urban planning theory, Sun expounds some fundamental concepts like theory, urban planning, urban planning theory, modern, and legitimizes urban planning as a social practice. In the very beginning of the introduction, a clear distinction between theory of urban planning and theory in urban planning is made. In the Chinese context, the author states, both ‘theory of urban planning’ and ‘theory in urban planning’ can be simplified as ‘urban planning theory’ (p.3). Thus it is legitimate to illuminate both theories in a book named ‘urban planning theory’. In the context of this book, urban planning theory is: both theory on cities and theory on the planning of cities, and in this sense, urban planning theory could be interpreted as ‘a generally, systematically rational cognition on the development of cities and urban planning process; an intellectual configuration used to comprehend urban development and planning process’ (p.16).
Sun further holds that urban planning theory, by its nature, might be classified into two categories: one is positive theory, which is chiefly related to ‘theory in urban planning’; the other one is normative theory, which is linked to ‘theory of urban planning’. This kind of distinction actually repeats Faludi’s prominent and influential identification of planning theory (Faludi, 1973) and there is a long list of contributions which follows his typology of planning theory.
As Allmendinger (2002) has put it, typologies are important in helping to understand often diverse influences, ideas and theories. Besides the above dichotomy in planning theory taxonomy, trichotomy is also common in planning theory debate. Friedmann (2003) has identified three kinds of planning theory, namely not only theory in planning (theory 1) and theory of planning (theory 2), but also theory about planning (theory 3), which is the theory based on empirical study or experience of practice. Tingwei Zhang (2008) also recognizes three kinds of theory: normativetheory (planning values), procedural theory (planning process) and institutional theory (planning institutions).
The author echoes this trichotomy in planning theory taxonomy by dividing urban planning theory into three interrelated levels: philosophical, scientific and technological. The scientific level, as the middle level, is considered by him as the most important level in the urban planning theory debate, ‘the main body’. Theories in this level address the abstraction of what urban planning concerns and its rational study. Theories in the philosophical level synthesize and generalize those in the middle level, and uncover the true nature of urban planning; while theories in the last level, the technological level, deduce and specify middle-level theories and act as approaches and tools when urban planners face practical problems. Sun further subdivides theories in scientific level into three aspects: theories on cities; theories on urban development and every urban component and its development; and theories about the implementation of urban planning.
The author also offers a sensible answer in three aspects to the question ‘why do planning?’ He argues that in the sense of economics, planning is a mechanism which helps secure a long-term, efficient operation of the free market. The regulation and control of real-estate markets by urban planning exemplifies the legitimacy of planning in practical terms. Sun demonstrates from the perspective of epistemology whether it is possible and feasible to ‘grow a plan’, as Edmund Bacon has put it.
The above detailed introduction of urban planning theory is followed by the main body of the book: the formation and development of modern urban planning in the last two centuries; theory on cities; theory on planning; and new dimensions and topics of theory.
I admire Sun’s great efforts in composing such a hefty tome about planning theory. He illuminates a crystal-clear structure or frame of urban planning theory and logically legitimizes urban planning in the context of the development of philosophy, natural science and economics. However, judged by its contents, the book is more like an encyclopaedia for planning practitioners, scholars and researchers than a research work. Fischler (2006) has argued that ‘the distinction between planning history and planning theory is an untenable one, at least pedagogically speaking’, though whether to put a concise history of modern western planning in such a ‘planning theory’ book is open to question. As the first ‘planning theory’ book in Chinese, it is reasonable to introduce readers very briefly a modern planning history as background information. But I believe that the proportion of purely historical analysis in a theory book should be reduced; at least no more than what it has taken, 160 pages.
While the author spends about another third of the book’s 618 pages elaborating urban theory, or what he calls ‘theory on city’, the part entitled ‘Theory on Planning’ occupies only 115 pages. Someone reading the contents of this part would be perplexed by those chapters’ titles: ‘The Real Significance of Planning’; ‘The Role of Urban Planning’; ‘The Type of Urban Planning’; ‘Policy Research of Urban Planning’; ‘Evaluation of Urban Planning’. Although ‘the impossibility of a “general theory of planning” is an article of faith among all right-thinking planning theorists’ (Alexander, 2003), there are still some ‘acknowledged’ planning theories that no planning theorist would ignore in reviewing the development of modern planning theory. These theories, such as ‘comprehensive rational planning’, ‘incremental planning’ (which mainly discusses Etzioni’s mixed-scanning and Branch’s continuous city planning) and ‘advocacy planning and public participation’, are subject to relatively limited discussion and only occupy Chapter 11, Part 4 of the book, with the bewildering title, ‘The Type of Urban Planning’. To his credit, the author endeavours to discuss planning theory since the beginning of the 21st century against the background of globalization, knowledge economy, information society, urban competitiveness, civil society and sustainable development. But the absence of a general perception of the dynamics of current planning theory indicates that there is a clear break between Chinese and the international circle of planning theory debate.
A final doubt is why ‘Chinese’ planning theory is not fully elaborated in this book. In truth, the planning theory debate has gradually heated up in recent years in China. An annual theory symposium is sponsored by Prof. Hok-Lin Leung and a biennial paper competition called ‘Qiushi Theory Forum’ has been held by the journal City Planning Review. The competition encourages the development of ‘a typically Chinese’ planning theory from three origins: traditional Chinese philosophy, experiments of socialistmarket economy and western positivist thoughts. Fostered by this and other stimuli, some original theories are emerging. It is very regretable that all these attempts, efforts and endeavours are hardly discussed in such a grand work.
I regard Shiwen Sun as one of a few erudite, rigorous and diligent Chinese planning theorists and Modern Urban Planning Theories has won many plaudits since its publication. However, I believe that it would be much better if it could be condensed into a true work of ‘planning theory’.