Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMontgomery, Roy L.en
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-30T02:30:24Z
dc.date.issued2010-08en
dc.identifier.citationMontgomery, R. (2010). Planning education and the role of theory in the new millennium: A new role for habitat theory? Lincoln Planning Review, 2(2), 8-13.en
dc.identifier.issn1175-0987en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10182/2615
dc.description.abstractIn 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.en
dc.format.extent8-13en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherLincoln University. LEaPen
dc.relationThe original publication is available from - Lincoln University. LEaPen
dc.subjecturban designen
dc.subjectNew Zealand Historic Places Trusten
dc.subjectenvironmental politicsen
dc.subjectenvironmental planningen
dc.subjecturban environmentsen
dc.subjectcity imageen
dc.subjectChristchurch Arts Centreen
dc.subjectProspect Refuge Hazard (PRH)en
dc.subjectChristchurch City Councilen
dc.titlePlanning education and the role of theory in the new millennium: a new role for habitat theory?en
dc.typeJournal Article
lu.contributor.unitLincoln Universityen
lu.contributor.unitFaculty of Environment, Society and Designen
lu.contributor.unitDepartment of Environmental Managementen
lu.contributor.unitResearch Management Officeen
lu.contributor.unit/LU/Research Management Office/2018 PBRF Staff groupen
dc.relation.isPartOfLincoln University Planning Reviewen
pubs.issue2en
pubs.notesThis article is based on a conference paper presented the annual meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Planning Schools in Christchurch, 17-19 April, 2010.en
pubs.organisational-group/LU
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Faculty of Environment, Society and Design
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Faculty of Environment, Society and Design/DEM
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Research Management Office
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Research Management Office/2018 PBRF Staff group
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden
pubs.volume2en
lu.identifier.orcid0000-0001-9759-034X


Files in this item

Default Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record