In the last two decades of the twentieth century, planning pedagogy
in New Zealand responded to broader intellectual and
social trends, and, arguably, indirect political pressures, with a
turn or return, depending upon one’s view of planning history,
to matters of process. I would describe this as a retreat rather
than return. For example, the widespread rhetoric around the
introduction of the Resource Management Act (RMA) in 1991
was that management would now be effects-based. Rather than
formulate prescriptive or proscriptive policies, planners were to
concentrate instead on guaranteeing that the process of assessing,
approving or rejecting applications, handling appeals and
monitoring consents was conducted in an efficient, transparent
and democratic manner. Consequently, in the planning
practice literature of the 1980s and 1990s and the first several
years of the new millennium, the main emphasis was on best
practice guides or protocols. For example, in New Zealand the
2005 Urban Design Protocol, published by the Ministry for the
Environment, argues that good urban design follows the “seven
‘c’s”: context, character, choice, connections, creativity, custodianship,
and collaboration. While such principles have merit,
they require what I would term the eighth ‘c’: content that operationalises
the principles (i.e., what actually makes for durable
urban design). Disappointingly, the Urban Design Protocol
shies away from saying anything about what is good versus bad
urban design.[Show full abstract]
![[PDF]](/themes/LURA/images/mimes/b_pdf.png "PDF file"){kind=small}
