Charles Hoch

Doing Good and Being Right The Pragmatic Connection in Planning Theory

Abstract Mainstream American planning theorists have adopted a concept of planning that is amazingly similar to the concept of human action proposed by the philosopher John Dewey. Like Dewey, they have built a bridge to close the gap between being right and doing good, using a scaffolding that combines identification of problems, formulation of plans, and democratic participation. Unfortunately, these mainstream theorists overlook the limits of this pragmatic connection, overestimating the efficacy of instrumental problem solving and underestimating the effects of an uneven distribution of power.

Insurgencies: Essays in planning theory

Editorial note: The publication of a retrospective selection of John Friedmann’s life works seemed an important opportunity to reflect on the impact of Friedmann on the evolution of planning theory over the last half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. Not surprisingly, few invitations to contribute were declined; no one who teaches or writes planning theory today is without an opinion on John Friedmann’s work. The comments by Angelique Chettiparamb, Judith Innes, ER Alexander, Charles Hoch, Kang Cao, and Richard Margerum are testimony to the breadth of methods Friedmann has utilized and the depth of his impact. He is described as an intellectual historian, utopian, ethicist, bridge builder, and provocateur, as well as mentor, colleague, and role model. It is impossible to read these comments without challenging the modalities of one’s own work and asking when convention should be abandoned for possibility. The commentators also point unmistakably to the power of theory to change practice.

Evaluating Plans Pragmatically

In this article I take up the topic of plan evaluation. I compare two approaches. One approach uses Rational analysis, the other pragmatic reasoning. I argue that planners should place less emphasis on rational analysis and adopt a distinctly pragmatic approach when evaluating plans. Analysis may offer objectivity and precision, but it sacrifices context and continuity. A pragmatic outlook embraces context and seeks continuity among diverse viewpoints. It avoids the separation between analysis and action, providing a useful rationale for what some practitioners might call common sense judgment.

How Plan Mandates Work: Affordable Housing in Illinois

Abstract I analyze the consequences of a recent statewide affordable housing planning mandate in Illinois. My survey of local officials uncovered widespread resistance and grudging compliance. At the mandate deadline, 36 of 49 prosperous suburban municipalities had the required plans, but most of these plans met the minimum legal requirements and failed to acknowledge prior exclusion or propose specific remedies. I find evidence of subregional collaboration among municipal officials, indicating they are aware of their interdependence though they remain strongly attached to local autonomy. My results demonstrate how unpopular the mandate was with local officials, potentially explaining why meeting its goals may require some time.

Making Plans: Representation and Intention

Conceiving planning theory as a kind of practical reason shifts attention from making rational arguments justifying planning beliefs to the study of plan-making as a feature of practical reasoning. Adopting this viewpoint allows for the comparison of what rational planning theory keeps apart: theories about plan-making that focus on the representation of urban development (e.g. Lew Hopkins) and theories that study the intentional features of deliberative planning processes (e.g. Judith Innes). Analysis demonstrates that the seemingly incompatible viewpoints can offer complementary insights about plan-making without diminishing or distorting important differences. There need be no epistemic or theoretical gap separating the representation and intention of plan-making; no big difference between substance and process. The differences are practical.

Planning Craft: How Planners Compose Plans

Conceiving urban plan making as practical judgment shifts theoretical attention from questions of belief to questions of meaning. How do we make urban plans that combine intelligent coordination with savvy communication to anticipate and cope with urban complexity? Consider adopting a pragmatic approach that relies on coherence to inform the appraisal, comparison and selection that accompany practical judgment. Plans compose the meaning and consequence of future actions. Pragmatic composition combines representation and interpretation to frame problems of urban complexity. Four orientations are described using plan examples: protocol, precedent, prototype and policy.

Racism and Planning

Abstract Racism shapes and influences what many planners do. Interviews with three minority planners illustrate three different objectives in the elimination of racism: equal opportunity, affirmative action, and cultural inclusion. Two detailed stories contrast a white professionals affirmative action efforts with an African-American females account of coping with the subtle and painful indignities of institutional and cultural exclusion. The efforts individual planners take to avoid discriminating by race and to redress racial injustice are important. However, these efforts alone do not address the justice gap between African-American minorities and the white majority.

Utopia, scenario and plan: A pragmatic integration:

The concepts utopia, scenario, and plan offer important ways to envision the future of place. Utopia describes the perfect, complete place. Scenario compares good alternative stories. Plans offer useful provisional intentions. All three help us imagine how future consequences of select actions might influence current expectations and hopes. I argue that pragmatism can integrate all three along a continuum from holistic inclusive to selective incremental. Utopia dramatizes emotional attachments to the daily details of a purposeful way of life for some future imagined place. Scenario describes the confluence of narrative and explanation, story and cause as coherent testable accounts of relevant consequences for plausible futures. Plan describes how we compose and compare alternatives to inform practical intentions for choices and decisions for immediate problems we currently face. Framing the three concepts pragmatically avoids the contrast between utopian rupture and narrative continuity by treating both as complementary aspects of a practical imagination. Composing plans requires adaptive attention to specific features of people and place susceptible to purposeful change.

Planning to Keep the Doors Open for Moral Communities

How do we plan for collective decision-making without sacrificing the benefits of democratic pluralism to planning demands for rational consensus or precision? Seymour Mandelbaum argues that we adopt and promote open moral communities. Using ideas of political theorist James Bohman, I review and critique Mandelbaum’s emphasis on critical irony and communitarian sensibility as these take for granted the important role planning plays helping us coordinate and cope with social complexity in modern societies. We can take Mandelbaum’s critical insight that we enliven and improve the quality of public deliberation using a robust pluralism. However, binding that pluralism together will take more than respectful reciprocity and civic virtue, it requires that we do plans and planning to help guide collective decisions in an increasingly complex and interdependent world. Planning and plan-making play an important role coordinating these complex relationships. I offer two brief planning examples - one fitting Mandelbaum’s ideal and another that does not to show how a plan can still offer practical guidance even as the deliberations that frame it fail.

Pragmatic rational planning: Comparing Shanghai and Chicago

Planners in Shanghai and Chicago inhabit contrasting institutional planning systems. Despite these differences, the professional planners exhibit a shared commitment to basic rational planning doctrine. But most importantly, they practice a kind of pragmatic planning that adapts the principles of sustainability and an inclusive public interest to everyday planning conduct. Professional planners share a kind of practical intelligence acquired through university education that they use to pragmatically pursue shared planning norms within different institutional settings.