1. What are the key ‘take home points’ we should derive from the RTPI’s ethical guidance to planners (https://www.rtpi.org.uk/press-releases/2020/january/code-of-professional-conduct/ and https://www.rtpi.org.uk/membership/professional-standards/professional-ethics/)? In your response reflect on whether you think the current advice provided by the RPTI is sufficient or whether it can be improved.
2. Discuss whether you think planning is actually necessary for fair societies, sustainable futures and efficient markets.
3. Critically discuss the contribution of communicative planning to planning practice.
4. Critically discuss the relevance of ideas about postpolitics for the way in which we manage future urban development.
1. Which theoretical debates best help us to understand the evolution of English planning since 2010? You can focus on either the theories that justify the government’s changes or those whichcritique it, or both.
2. Critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of work on developing a Greater Manchester Spatial Framework in relation to one or more planning theories or urban theories.
3. Critically discuss the emergence of New Urbanism ideas, reflecting in your response on the implications for countries outside North America.
4. On paper, the pursuit of sustainable development remains a cornerstone of the English planning system. Drawing on debates in planning theory, urban theory and /or environmental theory, critically discuss whether we can be proud of planning’s role in supporting sustainable development, reflecting on the period since 2004 when this goal was declared to be the statutory purpose of planning.
Expert answer
Critically discuss the relevance of ideas about postpolitics for the way in which we manage future urban development.
Postpolitics is often used to describe the current political landscape. It suggests that we are moving away from traditional ideological politics and towards a more pragmatic, technocratic approach. This is often seen as a positive development, as it allows us to move beyond ideology and focus on practical solutions.
However, there are some who argue that postpolitics is a dangerous trend. They suggest that it leads to a depoliticisation of issues, and an increasing reliance on experts and technocrats. This can result in a loss of democratic accountability, and a failure to address the underlying social and economic problems that lead to urban problems in the first place.
It is clear that there are both advantages and disadvantages to the idea of postpolitics. However, it is important to remember that, ultimately, the way in which we manage future urban development will be determined by the specific context in which we operate. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, and what works in one city may not work in another. We need to be flexible and adaptable in our approach, and open to new ideas and approaches. only then can we hope to create truly sustainable and liveable cities for the future.
Critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of work on developing a Greater Manchester Spatial Framework in relation to one or more planning theories or urban theories.
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) is a long-term plan for the future development of the Greater Manchester region in England. The GMSF was first published in 2016, and is currently being revised. The GMSF sets out a vision for the development of Greater Manchester over the next 20 years, and includes plans for new housing, employment, transport and infrastructure.
The GMSF has been criticised for failing to address some of the key issues facing Greater Manchester, including climate change, inequality and the lack of affordable housing. Some have also criticized the GMSF for its lack of consultation with local communities and its top-down approach to planning. However, others have praised the GMSF for its ambition and for its potential to improve the quality of life for residents of Greater Manchester.
The GMSF is a controversial and complex issue, and there is a lot of debate about its merits and drawbacks. In this essay, I will critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the GMSF in relation to two planning theories: the theory of incrementalism, and the theory of strategic planning. I will argue that, while the GMSF has some strengths, it also has significant weaknesses which mean it is not an effective way of planning for Greater Manchester’s future development.
Incrementalism is a planning theory which emphasises gradual change and small steps, rather than large-scale changes. Incrementalism is often contrasted with strategic planning, which emphasises long-term planning and the development of a clear vision for the future. The GMSF can be seen as an example of incrementalism, as it sets out a slow and gradual process for the development of Greater Manchester over the next 20 years.
There are some advantages to this approach. Incrementalism is often seen as a more realistic and achievable way of planning, as it does not try to make large-scale changes all at once. This can make it less risky and less likely to fail than strategic planning. Incrementalism can also be more flexible and responsive to change, as it allows for small changes to be made in response to new information or circumstances.
However, there are also some disadvantages to incrementalism. Incre .......................
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) is a long-term plan for the future development of the Greater Manchester region in England. The GMSF was first published in 2016, and is currently being revised. The GMSF sets out a vision for the development of Greater Manchester over the next 20 years, and includes plans for new housing, employment, transport and infrastructure.
The GMSF has been criticised for failing to address some of the key issues facing Greater Manchester, including climate change, inequality and the lack of affordable housing. Some have also criticized the GMSF for its lack of consultation with local communities and its top-down approach to planning. However, others have praised the GMSF for its ambition and for its potential to improve the quality of life for residents of Greater Manchester.
The GMSF is a controversial and complex issue, and there is a lot of debate about its merits and drawbacks. In this essay, I will critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the GMSF in relation to two planning theories: the theory of incrementalism, and the theory of strategic planning. I will argue that, while the GMSF has some strengths, it also has significant weaknesses which mean it is not an effective way of planning for Greater Manchester’s future development.
Incrementalism is a planning theory which emphasises gradual change and small steps, rather than large-scale changes. Incrementalism is often contrasted with strategic planning, which emphasises long-term planning and the development of a clear vision for the future. The GMSF can be seen as an example of incrementalism, as it sets out a slow and gradual process for the development of Greater Manchester over the next 20 years.
There are some advantages to this approach. Incrementalism is often seen as a more realistic and achievable way of planning, as it does not try to make large-scale changes all at once. This can make it less risky and less likely to fail than strategic planning. Incrementalism can also be more flexible and responsive to change, as it allows for small changes to be made in response to new information or circumstances.
However, there are also some disadvantages to incrementalism. Incre
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) is a long-term plan for the future development of the Greater Manchester region in England. The GMSF was first published in 2016, and is currently being revised. The GMSF sets out a vision for the development of Greater Manchester over the next 20 years, and includes plans for new housing, employment, transport and infrastructure.
The GMSF has been criticised for failing to address some of the key issues facing Greater Manchester, including climate change, inequality and the lack of affordable housing. Some have also criticized the GMSF for its lack of consultation with local communities and its top-down approach to planning. However, others have praised the GMSF for its ambition and for its potential to improve the quality of life for residents of Greater Manchester.
The GMSF is a controversial and complex issue, and there is a lot of debate about its merits and drawbacks. In this essay, I will critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the GMSF in relation to two planning theories: the theory of incrementalism, and the theory of strategic planning. I will argue that, while the GMSF has some strengths, it also has significant weaknesses which mean it is not an effective way of planning for Greater Manchester’s future development.
Incrementalism is a planning theory which emphasises gradual change and small steps, rather than large-scale changes. Incrementalism is often contrasted with strategic planning, which emphasises long-term planning and the development of a clear vision for the future. The GMSF can be seen as an example of incrementalism, as it sets out a slow and gradual process for the development of Greater Manchester over the next 20 years.
There are some advantages to this approach. Incrementalism is often seen as a more realistic and achievable way of planning, as it does not try to make large-scale changes all at once. This can make it less risky and less likely to fail than strategic planning. Incrementalism can also be more flexible and responsive to change, as it allows for small changes to be made in response to new information or circumstances.
However, there are also some disadvantages to incrementalism. Incre
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) is a long-term plan for the future development of the Greater Manchester region in England. The GMSF was first published in 2016, and is currently being revised. The GMSF sets out a vision for the development of Greater Manchester over the next 20 years, and includes plans for new housing, employment, transport and infrastructure.
The GMSF has been criticised for failing to address some of the key issues facing Greater Manchester, including climate change, inequality and the lack of affordable housing. Some have also criticized the GMSF for its lack of consultation with local communities and its top-down approach to planning. However, others have praised the GMSF for its ambition and for its potential to improve the quality of life for residents of Greater Manchester.
The GMSF is a controversial and complex issue, and there is a lot of debate about its merits and drawbacks. In this essay, I will critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the GMSF in relation to two planning theories: the theory of incrementalism, and the theory of strategic planning. I will argue that, while the GMSF has some strengths, it also has significant weaknesses which mean it is not an effective way of planning for Greater Manchester’s future development.
Incrementalism is a planning theory which emphasises gradual change and small steps, rather than large-scale changes. Incrementalism is often contrasted with strategic planning, which emphasises long-term planning and the development of a clear vision for the future. The GMSF can be seen as an example of incrementalism, as it sets out a slow and gradual process for the development of Greater Manchester over the next 20 years.
There are some advantages to this approach. Incrementalism is often seen as a more realistic and achievable way of planning, as it does not try to make large-scale changes all at once. This can make it less risky and less likely to fail than strategic planning. Incrementalism can also be more flexible and responsive to change, as it allows for small changes to be made in response to new information or circumstances.
However, there are also some disadvantages to incrementalism. Incre
Customer ID: 100351