Re-evaluating the place of urban planning history

This commentary seeks to prompt new discussion about the place of urban planning history in the era of contemporary globalisation. Given the deep historic engagement of urban planning thought and practice with ‘place’ shaping and thus with the constitution of society, culture and politics, we ask how relevant is planning's legacy to the shaping of present day cities. Late twentieth century urban sociology, cultural and economic geography have demonstrated the increasing significance of intercity relations and the functional porosity of metropolitan boundaries in the network society, however statutory urban planning systems remain tied to the administrative geographies of states. This ‘territorial fixing’ of practice constrains the operational space of planning and, we argue, also limits its vision to geopolitical scales and agendas that have receding relevance for emerging urban relations. We propose that a re-evaluation of planning history could have an important part to play in addressing this spatial conundrum.

Spatial regulation and international differences in housebuilding industries

Housebuilding firms vary across the world in size and in the scope of their activities. This variety may seem surprising in an industry with open technologies and ease of entry. While market and technological factors may go some way to explain such differences, much of the causes of variation lie in dissimilarities in regulatory and institutional frameworks. These themes are explored through a comparative analysis of the structure of the residential development industry in Australia, the UK and the USA and in analysis of firm size hierarchies. The firm concentration ratio is much higher in the UK than the other two countries and the reasons may lie in the geography of the country but also in the peculiarities of its planning system.