Minding the gap: questioning our strategy to bridge urban theory and practice

Journal title TERRITORIO
Author/s Aubrey Toldi
Publishing Year 2025 Issue 2024/108-109
Language English Pages 7 P. 166-172 File size 275 KB
DOI 10.3280/TR2024-108015
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Explicit debates about theory-practice tensions have evolved over the past decades. Recently, there has been much focus on exposing the practical and theoretical shortcomings of deliberation (critique), lending urban scholars to call for new, enlightened ways of acting (vision). While this has brought about broader disciplinary awareness, many still struggle to respond to calls for more inclusive, collaborative, and reflexive actions. Why? In efforts to move this conversation forward, this paper calls into question this ‘critique and vision’ strategy and proposes that planners consider approaching this debate with a ‘naming and anticipating’ attitude instead.

Keywords: theory-practice tensions; communicativedeliberative approaches; ‘critique and vision’

  1. Alexander E.R., 1997, «A mile or a millimeter? Measuring the ‘planning theory – practice gap». Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24, 1: 3-6.
  2. Alexander E.R., 2010, «Introduction: Does planning theory affect practice, and if so, how?» Planning Theory, 9, 2: 99-107. DOI: 10.1177/1473095209357862
  3. Allegra Lab, 2023, «From Despair to Where? Anthropology, critique, political practice and the case for radical optimism». https://allegralaboratory.net/from-despair-to-where-anthropology-critique-political-practice-and-the-case-for-radical-optimism/ (access: 2024.07.29).
  4. Allmendinger P., Haughton, G., 2012, «Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus?» Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37, 1: 89-103.
  5. Allmendinger P., Tewdwr-Jones M., 2002, «The Communicative Turn in Urban Planning: Unravelling Paradigmatic, Imperialistic and Moralistic Dimensions». Space and Polity, 6, 1: 5-24. DOI: 10.1080/13562570220137871
  6. Anderson C., 2020, «Confronting the Institutional, Interpersonal and Internalized Challenges of Performing Critical Public Scholarship». acme: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 19, 1: 270-302.
  7. Barnes T., Sheppard E., 2019, a cura di, Spatial Histories of Radical Geography: North America and Beyond. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Batty M., 2023, «The Link between Theory and Practice». Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 50, 1: 3-6. DOI: 10.1177/23998083221149271
  8. Bernhardt C., Meissner K., 2020, «Communicating and Visualising Urban Planning in Cold War Berlin». Urban Planning, 5, 2: 10-23.
  9. Blythe J., Silver J., Evans L., Armitage D., Bennett N. J., Moore M., Morrison T.H., Brown K., 2018, «The Dark Side of Transformation: Latent Risks in Contemporary Sustainability Discourse». Antipode, 50, 5: 1206-1223.
  10. Bluwstein J., 2021, «Transformation is not a metaphor». Political Geography, 90: 1-3.
  11. Bulkeley H., Lecavalier E., Basta C., 2023, «Transformation through transdisciplinary practice: cultivating new lines of sight for urban transformation». Local Environment, 28, 7: 829-836. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2023.2218078
  12. Chandler D., 2024, «The politics of the unseen: speculative, pragmatic and nihilist hope in the anthropocene». Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 25, 1: 1-16. DOI: 10.1080/1600910X.2023.2235916
  13. Davidoff P., 1965, «Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning». Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, 4: 331-338. DOI: 10.1080/01944366508978187.
  14. Debarbieux B, Hirt I., 2022, a cura di, The Politics of Mapping. London: Wiley-iste.
  15. DeLeon P., 1988, Advice and Consent: The Development of the Policy Sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  16. Dryzek J., 1993, «Policy Analysis and Planning: From Science to Argument». In: Fisher F., Forester J., a cura di, The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham: Duke University Press, 213-232. Elwood S., 2022, «Toward a Fourth Generation Critical gis: Extraordinary Politics». ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 21, 4: 435-447.
  17. Fainstein S., 2014, «The just city». International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18, 1: 1-18. DOI: 10.1080/12265934.2013.834643
  18. Fischer F., Forester J., 1993, a cura di, The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham: Duke University Press.
  19. Forester J., 1999, The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge: The mit Press.
  20. Forester J., 2020, «Five generations of theory–practice tensions: enriching socio-ecological practice research». Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2: 111-119.
  21. Forester J., 2022, «Options analysis as context-responsiveness in practice». Planning Theory & Practice, 23, 5: 663-680. DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2022.2133158
  22. Gans H., 1959, «The Human Implications of Current Redevelopment and Relocation Planning». Journal of The American Planning Association, 25: 15-26. DOI: 10.1080/01944365908978294
  23. Gans H., 1963 «Social and Physical Planning for the Elimination of Urban Poverty». Washington University Law Quarterly, 1: 2-18.
  24. Grebler L., 1962, «National Programs for Urban Renewal in Western Europe». Land Economics, 38, 4: 293-304.
  25. Gualini E., 2015, «Conflict in the City: Democratic, Emancipatory–and Transformative? In Search of the Political in Planning Conflicts». In: Gualini E., ed., Planning and Conflict: Critical Perspectives on Contentious Urban Developments. London-New York: Routledge, 3-36.
  26. Harris B., 1960, «Plan or projection». Journal of the American Institute of Planners, xxvi: 265-272. DOI: 10.1080/01944366008978425
  27. Harris N., 1997, «Orienting Oneself to Practice: A Comment on Alexander». Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24, 6: 799-806.
  28. Healey P., 1993, «Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory». In: Fischer F., Forester J., eds., The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham: Duke University Press, 233-253.
  29. Healey P., 2006, Collaborative planning (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  30. Huxley M., Yiftachel O., 2000, «New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory». Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 4: 333-342.
  31. Jackson A., Garcia-Zambrana I., Greenlee A.J., Aujean Lee C., Chrisinger B., 2018, «All Talk No Walk: Student Perceptions on Integration of Diversity and Practice in Planning Programs». Planning Practice & Research, 33, 5: 574-595. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2018.1548207
  32. Jacobs J., 1961, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
  33. Jasanoff S., Simmet H.R., 2017, «No funeral bells: Public reason in a ‘post-truth’ age». Social Studies of Science, 47, 5: 751-770. DOI: 10.1177/0306312717731936
  34. Katznelson I., 1997, «From the Street to the Lecture Hall: The 1960s». Daedalus, 126, 1: 311-332.
  35. Kinpaisby, M., 2008, «Taking Stock of Participatory Geographies: Envisioning the Communiversity». Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33, 3: 292–299.
  36. Leaf M., 2013, «The practical skill of theory». International Development Planning Review, 35, 4: v-x.
  37. Leszczynski A., 2018, «Digital methods I: Wicked tensions». Progress in Human Geography, 42, 3: 473-481. DOI: 10.1177/0309132517711779
  38. Li Destri Nicosia G., Saija L., 2023, «Planning as an instituting process. Overcoming Agamben’s despair using Esposito’s political ontology». Planning Theory, 0: 1-18. DOI: 10.1177/147309522312097
  39. Lindblom C.E., 1959, «The Science of ‘Muddling Through’». Public Administration Review, 19, 2: 79-88. DOI: 10.2307/973677
  40. Lodato T., DiSalvo C., 2018, «Institutional Constraints: The Forms and Limits of Participatory Design in the Public Realm». Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference, 1, 5: 1-12. DOI: 10.1145/3210586.3210595
  41. Löfstedt R.E., Vogel D., 2001, «The Changing Character of Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States». Risk Analysis, 21, 3: 399-416. DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.213121
  42. Patacchini E., Zenou Y., Henderson J.V., Epple D., 2009, «Urban Sprawl in Europe». Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 125-149.
  43. Purcell M., 2009, «Resisting Neoliberalization: Communicative Planning or Counter-Hegemonic Movements?» Planning Theory, 8, 2: 140-165. DOI: 10.1177/1473095209102232
  44. Reardon H., 2020, «Shifting the Conservation Conversation? A Critical Reflection on DH Project Design for a Counter-Mapping of Protected Areas in the Brazilian Amazon». Digital Studies/Le champ numérique, 10, 1: 1-39.
  45. Renn O., 1995, «Style of using scientific expertise: A comparative framework». Science and Public Policy, 22, 3: 147-156. DOI: 10.1007/978-3662-04371-4_9
  46. Rittel H.W.J., Webber M.M., 1973, «Dilemmas in a general theory of planning». Policy Sciences, 4, 2: 155-169. DOI: 10.1007/BF01405730
  47. Rivera I., 2023, «Towards accountable digital geographies». Dialogues in Human Geography, 1-5. DOI: 10.1177/20438206231177080
  48. Saija L., Santo C.A., Raciti A., 2020, «The deep roots of austere planning in Memphis, tn: is the fox guarding the hen house?» International Planning Studies, 25, 1: 38-51. DOI: 10.1080/13563475.2019.1703653
  49. Sevilla-Buitrago Á., 2022, Against the Commons: A Radical History of Urban Planning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  50. Shelton T., 2023, «Challenging opacity, embracing fuzziness: Geographical thought and praxis in a post-truth age». Dialogues in Human Geography, 0: 1-5. DOI: 10.1177/20438206231157891
  51. Sobo E. J., Lambert H., Heath C. D., 2020, «More than a teachable moment: Black lives matter». Anthropology & Medicine, 27, 3: 243-248. DOI: 10.1080/13648470.2020.1783054
  52. Stone D., 1988, Policy Paradox and Political Reason. Northbrook: Scott Foresman & Co.
  53. Szanton P., 2001, Not Well Advised: The city as client – an illuminating analysis of urban governments and their consultants. Author’s Choice Press. (Original work published 1981).
  54. Talvitie A., 2009, «Theoryless Planning». Planning Theory, 8, 2: 166-190. DOI: 10.1177/1473095209102233
  55. Tuck E., 2009, «Re-visioning Action: Participatory Action Research and Indigenous Theories of Change». Urban Review, 41, 1: 47-65.
  56. Ward S., 2023, «Is There a European Planning Tradition?» In: Welch Guerra M., Abarkan A., Castrillo Romón M.A., Pekár M., eds., European Planning History in the 20th Century: A Continent of Urban Planning. London-New York: Routledge, 199-206.
  57. Westman L., Broto V.C., 2022. «Urban Transformations to Keep All the Same: The Power of Ivy Discourses». Antipode, 54, 4: 1320-1343.
  58. Wilson M. W., 2017, New lines: critical GIS and the trouble of the map. Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press.
  59. Zoll D., Vasudevan R., Gauger B., Gelbard S., Kayanan C.M., Mah J., Reyes A., 2023, «Notes from the Trenches: Reflections from Recent PhD Graduates on Navigating the Academy». Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0: 1-9. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X231195729

Aubrey Toldi, Minding the gap: questioning our strategy to bridge urban theory and practice in "TERRITORIO" 108-109/2024, pp 166-172, DOI: 10.3280/TR2024-108015