Speakers
Description
Despite growing recognition of environmental and social challenges requiring a shift from traditional development paradigms, planning tools and practices remain fundamentally growth-oriented, largely unchanged from their mid-20th century features. This contradiction manifests differently across planning traditions and national contexts.
Across Europe, from South to North, we see that in major Italian cities like Rome and Milan, while explicit suburban expansion has declined, the “zero soil consumption” rhetoric (similar to “no net land take” policy in EU and “land use neutrality” Initiative in Norway), masks a continued prioritization of private development interests similar to 1950s practices. This perpetuates traditional pro-growth patterns through density maximization, green space reduction, and regulatory exemptions that favor private property owners over public planning objectives. Moreover, this seemingly degrowth strategy is evidently used to greenwash and legitimize growth-oriented agenda. Norway presents an interesting contrast between urban and rural contexts. Major cities experience “spontaneous” growth driven by economic and demographic trends, requiring no special stimulation. However, rural municipalities actively promote development through permissive regulations and simplified land conversion processes, essentially using planning policy to attract growth.
Common patterns emerge across different countries, even as urban growth shifts from expansion to densification: Frequent plan exemptions and derogations; Maximized building density; Inadequate provision of green spaces; Developer-driven location choices; Compromised collective space programming. Despite environmental messaging, contemporary urban development practices continue to prioritize private interests and deregulation, much like during the post-war building boom. This approach fundamentally contradicts stated objectives of addressing socio-environmental crises.
The key question becomes: How must planning tools evolve from their “Fabulous Fifties” origins to effectively implement different paradigms? Specifically, how can planning systems be redesigned to pursue objectives of sufficiency, reduction, and downscaling, rather than perpetual growth?
| Keywords | Pro-growthPost-growth Paradigms; Planning Theory and Practice; Post-growth Transition in Planning |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
