Speaker
Description
Urban planning has operated for over a century as the primary instrument of urban development, fundamentally equating development with growth (Pizzo 2023a, b, c; Savini et al. 2022, Rydin 2022; Xue, 2022). As we confront escalating environmental and social challenges, this traditional approach faces increasing scrutiny. While new theoretical frameworks emphasizing sufficiency, reduction, and downscaling principles have emerged to challenge mainstream planning orthodoxy, these approaches have yet to produce substantial changes in planning practices.
Current planning practices continue to define growth primarily through increases in building stock and economic value. Spatial plans are developed to maximize value creation, whether through suburban expansion generating absolute rent or through inner-city densification and various forms of urban regeneration producing differential rent. Even urban greening initiatives and climate crisis response policies often reinforce this growth-oriented paradigm (Conde et al. 2022) , and “monetization” is often preferred as a solution than avoiding questionable urban transformation proposals (Lave & Doyle 2021). Many planning professionals view their discipline as inextricable from the current development paradigm, reflected in the renewed relevance of Jameson's observation that “it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to contemplate the end of capitalism” (Jameson 1996).
Contemporary analysis of planning practices, particularly at the local level, reveals the persistent dominance of mainstream approaches. These practices remain firmly anchored not only in traditional concepts and norms but also in a vocabulary that perpetuates an increasingly contested pro-growth mindset.
Our research in Rome, Italy, provides the empirical foundation for examining critical elements that impede the transition from pro-growth to post-growth planning. We focus particularly on key planning concepts and policy tools, such as “compensation”, which in their current application obstruct meaningful change. Our analysis demonstrates why merely modifying existing planning tools while maintaining their growth-oriented framework proves insufficient for achieving genuine transformation toward post-growth cities. Moreover, we illustrate how conventional planning vocabulary presents a fundamental barrier to more radical post-growth transitions. Our investigation proceeds through three main objectives:
1. Analyzing how growth assumptions embedded in planning tools and vocabulary perpetuate unsustainable development patterns
2. Examining specific cases where traditional planning concepts impede the implementation of post-growth approaches
3. Developing alternative frameworks that transcend the conventional equation of development with growth.
We aim to contribute to the broader post-growth debate by examining real-world planning practices and their limitations in achieving post-growth objectives. We provide both theoretical insights and practical evidence demonstrating how entrenched planning paradigms must transform to achieve genuine ecological balance and social equity. Our findings challenge the above-mentioned Jameson's observation about the difficulty of imagining alternatives to capitalism by demonstrating concrete ways to reconceptualize planning beyond growth-centric approaches.
References
Conde M. D’Alisa G., Sekulova F. (2022). When greening is not degrowth: cost- shifting insights. In Savini, F., Ferreira, A., & von Schönfeld, K. (Eds.). (2022). Post-growth planning: Cities beyond the market economy. London-New York: Routledge.
Jameson F. (1996). The seed of time. New York: New York UP
Lave, R., & Doyle, M. (2021). Streams of revenue: The restoration economy and the ecosystems it creates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pizzo B. (2023a). Vivere o morire di rendita. La rendita urbana nel XXI secolo. Roma: Donzelli
Pizzo B. (2023b). Cities and Urbanism Beyond Growth. Ecological transition: where is it going? Ecology, economics, and urban planning between European Green Deal and Post-Growth Paradigms, Tracce Urbane 14.
Pizzo, B. (2023c). Ecological Transition without Change: A Paradox, a Misinterpretation, or a Renounce? Sustainability, 15(11).
Rydin Y. (2022). Planning beyond the backwash of a growth node: old and new thinking in Cambridgeshire, England and Skåne, Sweden. In Savini et al. (Cit.).
Xue J. (2022). Planning law and post-growth tranformation. In Savini et al. (Cit.).
Savini, F., Ferreira, A., & von Schönfeld, K. (2022). Uncoupling planning and economic growth: towards post-growth urban principles: an introduction. In Savini et al. (Cit.).
| Keywords | Post-growth, Urban planning, Development Paradigm, Planning concept and tools |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
