Skip to main content
main-content
Top

About this book

Planning theory and practice has become more conscious in recent times of the need to cater for a diverse range of needs and preferences. But there has been less clarity about what goals and objectives should inform planning for such diversity.

In this important new book Ruth Fincher and Kurt Iveson identify three distinct working principles of planning for diversity: redistribution, recognition and encounter. Each principle is the subject of a pair of chapters. The first explaining the principle and the second showcasing and comparing efforts to shape cities according to it, drawing on relevant examples from around the world.

Planning for Diversity is the ideal introduction to the issues that surround diversity and planning and provides a stimulating new line of advance for reducing inequality and working towards 'just diversity' in cities.

RUTH FINCHER is Professor of Geography at the University of Melbourne, Australia

KURT IVESON is Lecturer in Urban Geography at the University of Sydney, Australia

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Abstract
In the industrialized countries of the West, by the 1960s, assumptions that had been largely taken for granted in planning thought and practice were being scrutinized critically from a range of directions. Richard Sennett’s assault on the practice of urban planning in the United States, in The Uses of Disorder, is a celebrated example. And, of course, Sennett’s book, when it was published in 1970, was but the latest in a series of blistering attacks on urban planning in America that were beginning to have (and indeed continue to have) a profound infl uence on planning debates in the United States and beyond — Herbert Gans’s The Urban Villagers and Jane Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities among them. Hugh Stretton’s Ideas for Australian Cities presented his vision of urban planning as a means to improve life for inhabitants of cities and was a major Australian contribution to the discussions.
Ruth Fincher, Kurt Iveson

2. Conceptualizing Redistribution in Planning

Abstract
In this first chapter pair, Chapters 2 and 3, we consider redistribution as a social logic of planning that contributes to building a just diversity in urban life by fostering ‘rights to the city’. In our view of a just diversity, very great and increasing differences between rich and poor are the result of unjust structures of distribution and are of significance for planning because they confer better rights to the city on the rich than on the poor. The primary aim of redistribution in planning, then, is to reduce this particular difference. In shining a light on redistribution, our focus is consistent with a long tradition of planning thought and practice, which has sought to position planning as an alternative to the unfettered operation of markets in distributing resources, infrastructure and services in cities.
Ruth Fincher, Kurt Iveson

3. Planning for Redistribution in Practice

Abstract
Three examples of redistributive approaches to planning cities will be presented in this chapter. The first, urban renewal, has sought to increase the public good in cities by improving living conditions in areas of poor housing. Insofar as it envisages its beneficiaries as citizens of particular disadvantage, urban renewal policy and practice does not designate these citizens in other terms. So, it is treated here as redistribution qua redistribution. Issues of group recognition and encounter are raised from time to time in circumstances of urban renewal, but the connection of recognition and encounter to redistribution is explored more explicitly in the chapter’s other examples. The second example, local child care planning, seeks to redistribute advantage towards those requiring an accessible service in order to return to the workforce. It is redistributive planning directed particularly at women, recognizing their need for accessible child care if they are to discharge their caring obligations effectively whilst working in the paid labour force. So this second example of redistributive planning is one that combines its redistributive aim with that of recognizing the needs of a particular group (women working in the paid labour force).
Ruth Fincher, Kurt Iveson

4. Conceptualizing Recognition in Planning

Abstract
As we noted in Chapter 1, cities are characterized by different kinds of diversities. In Chapters 2 and 3, we argued that working towards ‘rights to the city’ should involve redistributive policies which work to reduce some forms of diversity — the diversity of rich and poor. But not all forms of diversity in cities are to be reduced through redistribution. Indeed, the devaluing and stigmatization of some urban identities and ways of life is one of the principal forms of injustice in cities. In the following two chapters, then, we develop a case for the recognition of some forms of diversity as a guiding principle for efforts to shape cities. Here, we are concerned both with identifying those forms of diversity that warrant recognition and with outlining some of the urban political and institutional mechanisms through which that recognition can be achieved. In this chapter, we build our case for recognition as an important social logic of urban planning by examining the nature of inter-subjective relationships among urban inhabitants, exploring in particular how modes of social ordering constrain and enable different ways of being in the city. Our aim is to develop a framework that can be applied to evaluate critically a range of remedies that seek to address the systematic deprecation of categories of people and their ways of inhabiting urban space.
Ruth Fincher, Kurt Iveson

5. Planning for Recognition in Practice

Abstract
In Chapter 4 we emphasized how decision rules for planning that recognize difference cannot be straightforwardly devised from theoretical discussions, ready-made for application to any number of real-world settings. Rather, in awareness of the range of options that have been tried in certain contexts, decision rules may be selected, pragmatically, for use in the context at hand.
Ruth Fincher, Kurt Iveson

6. Conceptualizing Encounter in Planning

Abstract
So far, we have considered both redistribution and recognition as goals for planning which seek to promote just diversity by fostering rights to the city. As we have seen, the logics of redistribution and recognition are designed to deal with different kinds of diversity. The former seeks to eradicate the diversity of ‘rich’ and ‘poor’, by reducing or eliminating those forms of urban inequality which are a product of the maldistribution of resources. The latter seeks to accommodate the diversity of group distinctiveness, by attacking those forms of inequality which are a product of failures to recognize the existence of different needs and values. However, the forms of diversity which we have discussed in relation to redistribution and recognition do not exhaust the forms of diversity experienced in city life. Indeed, while these two strategies are concerned with the diverse identities of urban inhabitants (as citizens and group members, respectively), we should not reduce urban inhabitants to these rather fixed identity categories. To do so is both to miss the individual urban inhabitant’s own potential for multiplicity, and to neglect the role of planning in enhancing their opportunities for ‘becoming someone else’ as well as ‘being themselves’.
Ruth Fincher, Kurt Iveson

7. Planning for Encounter in Practice

Abstract
In Chapter 6 we focussed conceptually on the aim of planning to foster encounter, viewing encounter as interaction between unlike individuals and groups occurring in local places such as streets, public spaces and ‘third spaces’ like coffee shops and drop-in centres. The conviviality sought, as a result of encounter, can be the product of quite casual contact within one’s neighbourhood, or more purposeful interaction through an organized activity or micro-public. No encounter, planned or not, can be envisaged without some form of exclusion being associated with it. So one of the tasks of planning for encounter is to make sure that the forms of inclusion and exclusion that might arise from such planning are anticipated insofar as this is possible, acknowledged and compensated for if they privilege certain groups and behaviours over others. The decision rules devised for planning practice that facilitates encounter may incorporate thinking about redistribution and recognition, to help ensure this. In addition, as we saw with decision rule number two discussed in Chapter 6, a light planning touch is expected in planning for encounter. With planning approaches that aim not to micro-manage outcomes, the particular forms of exclusion may be difficult to predict.
Ruth Fincher, Kurt Iveson

8. Conclusion

Abstract
In Chapter 1, we laid out a rationale for seeking a just diversity in cities, which would both conceptualize the social ambitions of planning and examine ways in which they have been put into practice. This intention we framed in terms of three social logics — redistribution, recognition and encounter — which we argued were useful in drawing our attention to different, though related, dimensions of the ‘right to the city’. Trying to form a more just diversity in cities is obviously a normative activity. It is a quest to put in place what should be done. But through the chapters of the book it will have become evident that norms may be simply expressed, but they are never straightforwardly achieved or even defined readily in real-world planning contexts. For in every place in which planners try to improve the social conditions of urban built or serviced environments, they must contend with contests, power relations, shifts in government and governance, and the sheer inertia of old ways of proceeding.
Ruth Fincher, Kurt Iveson
Additional information