Review: "Planning Asian cities : risks and resilience" edited by Stephen Hamnett and Dean Forbes, Planning, History and Environment Series, London, Routledge, 2011

Since the beginning of the agricultural revolution, cities have always been the cradle of civilisation, innovation and productivity, particularly as a result of the recent change factors affecting their (trans)formation, such as globalisation, the knowledge economy, technological advancements, climate change and so on. While in some parts of the world, cities are rapidly growing, in other parts, cities are shrinking, and their populations are aging. Even under the current pressure of constantly changing global conditions, the role of cities in influencing and partially shaping local, regional, national, supranational and even global level economy, society, environment and governance is undeniable. Global changes, while providing opportunities for cities and their administrations to reform and revisit existing planning and development processes and mechanisms, at the same time, challenge them by dealing with everincreasing risks and establishing resilience. At present, more than half of the world’s population...

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.

The urban littoral frontier : land reclamation in the history of human settlements

The urban waterfront may be regarded as the littoral frontier of human settlement. Typically, over the years, it advances, sometimes retreats, where terrestrial and aquatic processes interact and frequently contest this margin of occupation. Because most towns and cities are sited beside water bodies, many of these urban centers on or close to the sea, their physical expansion is constrained by the existence of aquatic areas in one or more directions from the core. It is usually much easier for new urban development to occur along or inland from the waterfront. Where other physical constraints, such as rugged hills or mountains, make expansion difficult or expensive, building at greater densities or construction on steep slopes is a common response. This kind of development, though technically feasible, is usually more expensive than construction on level or gently sloping land, however. Moreover, there are many reasons for developing along the shore or riverfront in preference to using sites further inland. The high cost of developing existing dry land that presents serious construction difficulties is one reason for creating new land from adjacent areas that are permanently or periodically under water. Another reason is the relatively high value of artificially created land close to the urban centre when compared with the value of existing developable space at a greater distance inland. The creation of space for development is not the only motivation for urban expansion into aquatic areas. Commonly, urban places on the margins of the sea, estuaries, rivers or great lakes are, or were once, ports where shipping played an important role in the economy. The demand for deep waterfronts to allow ships to berth and for adjacent space to accommodate various port facilities has encouraged the advance of the urban land area across marginal shallows in ports around the world. The space and locational demands of port related industry and commerce, too, have contributed to this process. Often closely related to these developments is the generation of waste, including domestic refuse, unwanted industrial by-products, site formation and demolition debris and harbor dredgings. From ancient times, the foreshore has been used as a disposal area for waste from nearby settlements, a practice that continues on a huge scale today. Land formed in this way has long been used for urban development, despite problems that can arise from the nature of the dumped material and the way in which it is deposited. Disposal of waste material is a major factor in the creation of new urban land. Pollution of the foreshore and other water margin wetlands in this way encouraged the idea that the reclamation of these areas may be desirable on public health grounds. With reference to examples from various parts of the world, the historical development of the urban littoral frontier and its effects on the morphology and character of towns and cities are illustrated and discussed. The threat of rising sea levels and the heritage value of many waterfront areas are other considerations that are addressed.

Private and municipal forests and the forestry planning system in Japan - trends and problems after World War II.

XVIII IUFRO World Congress, Ljubljana 1986.

Fear and Urban Planning in Ordinary Cities: From Theory to Practice

The paper complements Abu-Orf's theory about violent settings by setting out a theory of fear in urban planning in ordinary urban contexts around three arguments: spatialization of fear; (modernist) spatialities and the encounter and political economies of urban fear. The three theoretical arguments are used to re-frame the planning history of Chelas, an affordable housing district in Lisbon, Portugal, and debate the way fear shapes, and is shaped in turn by, planning practice. Confirming that (growing) fear in ordinary urban contexts is not just an effect of the contemporary organization of cities, the paper argues for a theorization of fear that combines global (hegemonic) and a local (discursive/contingent) perspectives in the theorization of urban fear, and advocates for the need to put fear, and its capacity to create a crisis in urban policy, at the heart of planners' agendas.

Merely the man in the street: community consultation in the planning of 1920s Melbourne

It is an accepted tenet of planning history that Australia's planning practice in the first half of the 20th century was dominated by experts delivering a package of international planning ideas. Is this story made more    complicated, however by the attitudes of the lay Australian to urban planning at this time? What role have the approaches of planners and planning  bodies played in advising the public of the best routes to take  towards comprehensive and appropriate planning? This paper discusses these  issues with use of examples of the general public's letters to  Melboume's Metropolitan Town Planning Commission (MTPC)( 1923-30) about planning issues in Melbourne; the MTPC's responses; and responsive propaganda generated by prominent Melbourne planner Saxil Tuxen (1885-1975).

Learning from rural planning development to encourage urban and regional planning ; indigenous villages versus city development in Bali province

The most important crises in the planning system is related to the significance of "capitalist state" influences [3]. In the global context, Bengs states that there is a matter partiality between "global capitalism" and "national democracy"[4]. Bengs stresses that planning is closely related to the economy of a country, which is in one side the government wants to reduce taxes, while on the other side there is a dilemma of the global and indefinite solicitation of assets. Hall (2002) discusses the problems of the city; those are city planning, history of planning, and geographical setting. City planning is not only planning in one region but also including the district around the city, such as river basin and a certain regional culture. The urban planner should involve all those aspects in the city planning. Friedmann (2003) distinguishes planning theory into three types. First, planning theory is related to planning in particular fields such as land utilization, transportation, urban design, regional development, environmental planning etc. Second, the type of theory related to planning tout court, and the third type is the theory about planning itself. Sanyal (2002) states that although planners have limited autonomy, their actions affect policy result [5]. Friedman (2003) supports Sanyal's argument stressing that planners learned from their actions not from theories.

A tale of two Victorian historic coastal towns : dilemmas of planning and conservation in Queenscliff and Sorrento

Change has engulfed the coastal fringe of Australia. In balancing the built and natural environment, community needs, cultural significance and economic sustainability, planners aim to improve quality of life and create vibrant communities. Yet managing place change, particularly in coastal areas, is fraught with tensions. Most planning discussions about the rapidity of change, the impact of the Sea Change process and increased development have focused upon the extensiveness of residential expansion and the housing styles that challenge the essence of the character of these coastal towns. Character and sense of place qualities are the very reasons that sea changers desire to engage with and reside within these communities. One aspect missing from this discussion and analysis is the impact that large-scale transformations of iconic buildings are having upon these places. This paper examines the consequences that major commercial development projects have upon the communities of Sorrento and Queenscliff. It considers changes (proposed or realised) to four landmark historic hotels: The Koonya and Continental in Sorrento; and the Ozone and Vue Grand in Queenscliff. This paper focuses on issues of planning, social engagement and community debate.

Incorporating indigenous Australian knowledge and perspectives into planning practice : past, present and future

The history and contemporary practice of land-use planning and place-making by Indigenous Australians is poorly understood by academics, students and practitioners in the field of urban and regional planning in Australia. This is despite recent high-profile events which have increased the profile of Indigenous peoples’ rights, such as the recognition of native title by the High Court in Mabo v the State of Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 and The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), and Commonwealth policy and reconciliation discourses. Further, little impact has been discernible arising from the adoption of reconciliation policies by government bodies, planning authorities and the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA). This paper reviews this lack of progress and discusses why this is a problem for Australian planners which needs to be addressed. The paper reviews the present Australian historical and socio-cultural context in terms of collaboration with traditional land owners as it relates to contemporary planning practice. It considers ontological, epistemological and axiological differences between the dominant western model of planning and Indigenous models, and the challenges this presents. A case-study documenting past, present and future planning practices at Lake Condah in South West Victoria which is the Country of the Gunditjmara and Budj Bim will bring to life these topics through the documentation of Indigenous planning practices prior to and post European arrival. It offers a vision for the future of planning with Indigenous communities. The paper envisages a future which values and incorporates Indigenous place-making and planning, which goes far beyond the tacit acknowledgement of traditional owners commonly observed around Australia today.

Temporary use 2.0, a tool for planning and developing the new urban context

Temporary urban spaces are gaining even more footing and acceptance on the political agenda as a result of their potential for creating eventful, cultural and creative urban environments. This political focus on temporary urban space is an indication of general urban regulations and development tendencies characterized by cultural planning, leisure, economy, collaborative planning and an increased focus on everyday life. Particularly economic parameters related to leisure such as creativity, culture, urban life and experiences are highly prioritized on the urban municipal agenda, with temporary uses as a concrete development tool. An interesting dichotomy has also arisen between the use of temporary space as a tool for social planning by urban designers as opposed to the use of temporary spaces by politicians as a vehicle for economic gain through leisure spaces. This paper focuses on the phenomenon of Temporary Use as a city-political focus area now and in the future as well as the use of the temporary as a planning tool. Several case studies are used to illustrate these topics.

The wonderful possibilities of the future: Town planning and greater Brisbane

The 'greater city' movement in the 1920s in Australia was profoundly influenced by the growing town planning movement of the time. Brisbane was the only major metropolitan city in which local government amalgamations occurred, leading to a 'greater Brisbane' in 1925. The paper tries to identify reasons why, despite the close connection between the greater city movement and the early town planning movement, there was no formal town plan in place in Brisbane until 1965.