Why Study Cities?

Before entering urban planning I completed a Masters degree entitled Urban Economy and Culture (see here).  The course was being run for the first time by the University of Southampton as a sign of the growing popularity of urban geography and cities.  I thoroughly enjoyed the course, in particular the wide range of reading it exposed me to.  This included texts on the creative economy, global cities and urban economic development.  It also introduced me to Jane Jacobs, Richard Florida and Ed Glaeser among others.

In the six years since this course interest in urbanism and cities has, if anything, excelled.  Richard Florida is invited to Downing Street, Andrew Marr is making documentaries on Mega Cities, and Ed Glaeser is invited onto the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (cultural kudos indeed!).



It was therefore interesting to see Rowan Moore's review of two new books grappling with contemporary cities (here).  I have yet to read either book but Moore makes an excellent point I agree with.  The study of cities is becoming so all-encompassing that it covers all aspects of humanity.  As Moore discusses, if half the population live in cities then what can we exclude from urban studies?  Potentially nothing.  While this gives the academic field plenty of scope to undertake research it does weaken the concept of urban studies.  I gained a great deal from my urban studies course but it did lack specialisms that were directly relevant to the workplace, in particular urban planning.  The breadth of urban studies is excellent for providing context but can be portrayed as too generalist.  A greater engagement with the field of urban and land-use planning could refine urban studies and move it away from trying to achieve too much.  

Downsizing Cities

Not all cities are growing and nowhere embodies this more in the Western world than Detroit. Whilst Chinese cities are planning for staggering levels of population growth over the next twenty years, Detroit must respond to depopulation and falling tax receipts. It was therefore interesting to see this report on how Detroit aims to downsize by cutting off services to parts of the city (also see here). With certain neighbourhoods suffering from vacant properties, high unemployment and failing infrastructure, the city will instead focus services on a core area.


This appears to be a sensible approach that can bring a number of benefits. Increased residential densities create the critical mass for public transport initiatives which can combat the dominance of the car and bring health benefits. Higher densities also make more efficient use of land and can bring economies of scale to utilities, such as water and energy. This will save money for the city authorities and appears to be the driving force for the initiative. The reference to community farming is also positive and an excellent use of land that currently has little real estate value. Clearly the devil is in the detail and the city must be sympathetic to communities which, whilst looking desolate, do have strong social links that cannot be lost. It will be interesting to see how the city spatially develops and the role played by the planning authority in guiding the rationalisation of space.

Can planners switch countries?

Whilst planning is many things to many people, in essence it is the management of people and places. It requires a strong understanding of place – whether this is the street, the neighbourhood, the city or the country. Professional planners must therefore always work within the rules, regulations and legal framework of a specific country (even if the regulations then diverge between regions and cities). This raises the question of whether planners can easily switch between countries to practice in. Architects commonly have international commissions and open offices in a range of countries. But if a planners’ strength is his/her knowledge of the local ‘planning system’ then how can this be transferred to a new country with alien processes? Whilst some planning systems share similarities in environmental regulation and ‘best practice’, many systems are rooted in the specifics of that locality. Can a UK planner ease into a similar job in France or the USA?


When picking up the phone to a London Planning Department there is a good chance you’ll be met with a broad Antipodean accent – suggesting the move is possible. But this might be something specific to the relationship between the British and Australian planning systems. Urban planning, like many professions in the built environment sector, aims to formulate ‘best practice’ (a horrible term I must admit!) in key areas and these should be transferable between cities of different nations. The promotion of active frontages on the ground floor of buildings is a good idea whether it be Madrid or Manchester.

I think the extent to which planners can switch between countries depends hugely on their specific role within planning. If one is talking about a planner who just provides dry advice on the specifics of the planning system and what is required to obtain planning permission, then perhaps that role is country specific. But if one thinks of a planner as an active agent of change that brings stakeholders together, then this should be a skill that can cross borders. But I fear that planning in Britain is becoming too dominated by the processes and the role of the planner is seen in bureaucratic terms, meaning that the possibilities for cross-border learning are narrowing.

Now, where was my passport…………