Skip navigation
Skip navigation

Metropolitan planning in Australia : urban management.

Neutze, Max; Mant, John; Metropolitan Planning in Australia Seminar

Description

A long-standing debaJe over the nature and merits of 'rational comprehensive' versus 'incrementalist' models of public decision-making is continued in the papers on their application to planning by Max Neutze andlohnMant. Neutze reviews the post-war optomistic rise of comprehensive planning, and its subsequent replacement by more modest 'urban management' strategies in the wake of its apparent failure to 'deliver the goods'. During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a growing perception of the...[Show more]

dc.contributor.authorNeutze, Max
dc.contributor.authorMant, John
dc.contributor.authorMetropolitan Planning in Australia Seminar
dc.contributor.editorColes, Rita C
dc.coverage.spatialAustralia
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-01T04:38:40Z
dc.date.available2017-05-01T04:38:40Z
dc.date.created2018
dc.identifier.isbn073150397X
dc.identifier.issn1030-2921
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/116237
dc.description.abstractA long-standing debaJe over the nature and merits of 'rational comprehensive' versus 'incrementalist' models of public decision-making is continued in the papers on their application to planning by Max Neutze andlohnMant. Neutze reviews the post-war optomistic rise of comprehensive planning, and its subsequent replacement by more modest 'urban management' strategies in the wake of its apparent failure to 'deliver the goods'. During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a growing perception of the planning process as inherently political, of end-state planning as inflexible and bureaucratic, of collective action as less beneficial socially and economical}y than individual, and of the inability of planning to substantially affect the lot of the poor. This perception led to the development of minimalist and prophylactic planning strategies and a retreat from bold and visionary planning approaches which require sufficient determination to allow long-term decision-making. Master planning assumes the lead should be taken by a planning authority with a comprehensive view of all parts of the system. I ncrementalist approaches implicitly accept the leading role of the private sector despite possible detriments, especially in the area of service provision efficiency. The shift to urban management allows flexible responses to individual decisions, a characteristic particularly useful in the area of environmental and amenity protection, but it sacrifices the benefits of continuing commitments to a choosen alternative. The gains inflexibility which come with the kind of urban management which is less oriented to a long-term vision will necessarily be accompanied by losses in efficiency through less effective coordination between different investment decisions, and an inability to consider large scale alternatives in patterns of development. Mant argues that urban management is not an instrument of planning. Plan-making is an instrument of urban management. Plans are needed from time to time for particular purposes. It is a mistake to conceive of 'planning' as a simple lineal progression from plan to implementation. Further, 'planning' and 'urban management' should not be conceived as competing approaches to urban public poliq. The making of plans should be seen as a public policy tool for the achievement of del{berate and, at times, quite limited objectives. This paper discusses the role and limitations of plan-making as an urban management tool. The traditional comprehensive end-state planning exercise suffers from the same deficiencies as a public policy tool as other rational comprehensive policy activities.
dc.format.extentvi, 36 pages
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherUrban Research Program. Research School of Social Science. Australian National University.
dc.relation.ispartofseriesUrban Research Unit Working papers: No. 6
dc.rightsAuthor/s retain copyright
dc.subject.ddc307.760994
dc.subject.lccHT101.U87
dc.subject.lcshUrban policy -- Australia
dc.subject.lcshUrban renewal -- Australia
dc.subject.lcshHousing -- Australia
dc.titleMetropolitan planning in Australia : urban management.
dc.title.alternativeThe instruments of planning : urban management
dc.title.alternativePlanning as urban management : a critical assessment
dc.typeWorking/Technical Paper
local.description.notesTwo papers presented at a seminar.
dc.date.issued1988
local.type.statusPublished Version
local.identifier.doi10.4225/13/590a4f5c280b2
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Access
dc.description.tableofcontentsThe instruments of planning : urban management by John Mant / Planning as urban management : a critical assessment by Max Neutze.
dc.provenanceScanned, catalogued and preserved under the auspices of a joint initiative between Australian Policy Online (APO) and The Australian National University (ERMS2230346)
dc.rights.licenseCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Australia (CC BY-NC 3.0 AU)
CollectionsANU Urban Research Unit/Program

Download

File Description SizeFormat Image
URU no 6.pdf12.78 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail


Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Updated:  19 May 2020/ Responsible Officer:  University Librarian/ Page Contact:  Library Systems & Web Coordinator