In the last decades, important Anglo-Saxon and American planning approaches have considered the planning process as their main focus of theorization, research and practice. Even if in the past the design of the built environment had been a central element in planners’ education in multiple planning traditions, the theoretical discussion and the actual practice of design has only recently been taken into consideration to a greater extent inasmuch as it was perceived as a prerogative of other disciplines, such as architecture and urban design. Other European traditions such as the Italian and Spanish ones, as well as less conventional Anglo-Saxon and American approaches, developed a significant area of practice and studies at the crossroads between urban planning and urban design, though having a limited impact on the international planning debate and little attention in terms of research and theorization. Drawing on current planning and urban design literature and using the evidence of the well-known case of the regeneration of Poblenou in Barcelona, this chapter highlights the relevance of the design dimension of planning, with reference to theory, practice and applied research. The first section concisely presents four perspectives on urban design that will be useful in subsequent sections; in the second, the longstanding issue of the planning process/design divide, highlighting the relevance of the design dimension of planning and the need for a more complex interpretation of it. In the third section, selected examples regarding European and American traditions of education, research and practice that have been developed at the crossroads between urban design and planning provide an insight into the advancements that derived from a less compartmentalized understanding of planning, which is finally exemplified through the case of regeneration of Poblenou in Barcelona. The aim of this paper is to reconsider the unwarranted boundary drawn between design-oriented and process-oriented planning approaches, so as to show the challenges for planning theory and practice that may derive from trespassing such disciplinary boundaries. A number of arguments can be derived from literature and available experiments in practice, without necessarily aiming at creating a new grand theory or approach, nor expecting to finally “fill the gap between planning and design” (also because one may realistically consider the countless attempts at doing so in the last 60 years). At the same time the advantages of trespassing will be clear and they suggest that a significant area of studies and experimentation has been neglected in the international planning theory debate and that facing given planning issues (such as form-related planning tools, nesting large-scale projects into spatial visions, generating local knowledge through urban design and others) in a more integrated way could generate relevant benefits for educational programs as well.

The Unwarranted Boundaries between Urban Planning and Design in Theory, Practice and Research

D. Ponzini
2018-01-01

Abstract

In the last decades, important Anglo-Saxon and American planning approaches have considered the planning process as their main focus of theorization, research and practice. Even if in the past the design of the built environment had been a central element in planners’ education in multiple planning traditions, the theoretical discussion and the actual practice of design has only recently been taken into consideration to a greater extent inasmuch as it was perceived as a prerogative of other disciplines, such as architecture and urban design. Other European traditions such as the Italian and Spanish ones, as well as less conventional Anglo-Saxon and American approaches, developed a significant area of practice and studies at the crossroads between urban planning and urban design, though having a limited impact on the international planning debate and little attention in terms of research and theorization. Drawing on current planning and urban design literature and using the evidence of the well-known case of the regeneration of Poblenou in Barcelona, this chapter highlights the relevance of the design dimension of planning, with reference to theory, practice and applied research. The first section concisely presents four perspectives on urban design that will be useful in subsequent sections; in the second, the longstanding issue of the planning process/design divide, highlighting the relevance of the design dimension of planning and the need for a more complex interpretation of it. In the third section, selected examples regarding European and American traditions of education, research and practice that have been developed at the crossroads between urban design and planning provide an insight into the advancements that derived from a less compartmentalized understanding of planning, which is finally exemplified through the case of regeneration of Poblenou in Barcelona. The aim of this paper is to reconsider the unwarranted boundary drawn between design-oriented and process-oriented planning approaches, so as to show the challenges for planning theory and practice that may derive from trespassing such disciplinary boundaries. A number of arguments can be derived from literature and available experiments in practice, without necessarily aiming at creating a new grand theory or approach, nor expecting to finally “fill the gap between planning and design” (also because one may realistically consider the countless attempts at doing so in the last 60 years). At the same time the advantages of trespassing will be clear and they suggest that a significant area of studies and experimentation has been neglected in the international planning theory debate and that facing given planning issues (such as form-related planning tools, nesting large-scale projects into spatial visions, generating local knowledge through urban design and others) in a more integrated way could generate relevant benefits for educational programs as well.
2018
Planning Knowledge and Research
978-1138233768
Urban design
urban planning
planning theory
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ponzini 2018 in sanchez.PDF

Accesso riservato

: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 11.27 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
11.27 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/1042943
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact