When Politicians Call for “Better” Planning, it’s Time to Worry

Abstract

When I wrote my last Editorial for Planning Theory & Practice (Grant, 2020), we were in the first waves of the Covid-19 pandemic. We knew that planning would be different coming out of the crisis. Sad to say, of the scenarios I saw possible then, my most pessimistic has been exceeded in dreadfulness: societies failed to contain the virus and its negative consequences. Today we face extreme social, economic, and political polarization exacerbated by inflation, health-care catastrophes, and climate crisis. What’s more, in a context where housing supply and affordability has become a significant issue in many nations, politicians increasingly call for “better planning” and ‘red-tape reduction’ as they systematically attack the fundamental principles of local self-governance and sound planning. Because of the need for effective government action, the pandemic presented an opportunity to change the dynamics of planning, to initiate a caring and responsive era. Instead, it proved a brief interlude in the march of capitalism. Although interim payment programs for unemployed workers illustrated the potential that effective social programs have to improve lives, governments rapidly resumed initiatives to support and promote private-sector interests. Events like the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 – with its impacts on energy supplies and costs – affected efforts to address climate change and feed hungry people worldwide. The growing strength of anti-scientific, authoritarian, and repressive political voices threatens the foundations even of long-standing democracies. As governments try to respond to the housing crises that the pandemic highlighted, many are eager to get construction going quickly. Political leaders seem to concur that planning – with its pesky regulations and careful oversight – constrains housing supply. Hence, we see a push for planning reforms from right-, centre-, and left-leaning governments alike. Politicians call for cutting red tape, streamlining approval processes, and building more housing more quickly. The political discourse reads like the developers’ playbook, deploying the language of enhancing certainty, increasing densities, reducing NIMBYism, cutting fees to local governments, enhancing design quality (at least in superficial ways), and improving outcomes. Local planning, with its messy participatory processes and attention to immediate environmental conditions, is cast as an archaic impediment to growth and its glossy counterpart “prosperity.” History reminds us that planning is far from benign. It has operated within diverse and sometimes repressive ideologies. In many regions, it provided tools of imperial and colonial control while serving narrow political and economic interests. Yet during the 20 century planning promised hope. It sought to become a progressive tool of national economic development but also of social development. Although critics identified the “dark side” of planning (Yiftachel, 1998), practitioners fashioned policies for towns and open spaces they hoped would meet the needs of a broad cross-section of society. Since the 1980s, governments have increasingly taken a neoliberal turn: promoting market interests while undermining commitments to social responsibility. The change in political direction affected planning philosophy and practice, lending support to theories such as smart growth and sustainable development, and proposals for an urban renaissance. Planners advocated the same values and policies as developers: higher densities, urban regeneration, and “high-quality” urban design. Meantime, as we look at our cities, we see our failures. Growing numbers of unhoused people seek shelter in parks and on sidewalks, even as governments implement laws and regulations to