Planning, Property, and Political Logics of Development Compared

References

• Abram, S. (2014). The time it takes: Temporalities of planning. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 20(S1), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.12097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, D., Croudace, R., & Tiesdell, S. (2012). Exploring the ‘notional property developer’ as a policy construct. Urban Studies, 49(12), 2577–2596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011431283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, E. R. (1997). A mile or a millimeter? Measuring the ‘planning theory—practice gap’. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1068/b240003
   Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P. (2002). Planning theory. MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Altshuler, A. (1965). The goals of comprehensive planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(3), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambrose, P. J. (1994). Urban process and power. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Aragón, P., Kaltenbrunner, A., Calleja-López, A., Pereira, A., Monterde, A., Barandiaran, X. E., & Gómez, V. (2017). Deliberative platform design: The case study of the online discussions in Decidim Barcelona. In G. L. Ciampaglia, A. Mashhadi, & T. Yasseri (Eds.), Social informatics: 9th International Conference on Social Informatics Part II (pp. 277–287). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barras, R. (1987). Technical change and the urban development cycle. Urban Studies, 24(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420988720080021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauregard, R. A. (2020). Advanced introduction to planning theory. Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Boholm, A., & Löfstedt, R. E. (2013). Introduction. In A. Boholm & R. E. Löfstedt (Eds.), Facility siting: Risk, power and identity in land use planning (pp. xii–xxv). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Breheny, M. (2001). Housing is not a disease: Reflections on PPG3 and regional planning guidance. Journal of Planning and Environmental Law (Supplement Occasional Paper), 29, 79–89.
   Google Scholar
• Briffault, R. (1995). The local government boundary problem in metropolitan areas. Stanford Law Review, 48(5), 1115. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brindley, T., Rydin, Y., & Stoker, G. (2005). Remaking planning: The politics of urban change. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, M. (2017). Planning theory for practitioners. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P. H. (2015). How real estate developers think: Design, profits, and community. University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brugler, J., Nasiri, M., & He, R. (2020). The duration and amplitude of Australia’s housing cycles. Victoria’s Economic Bulletin, 4, 1–14. https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/Victorian%20Economic%20Bulletin%20-%20Volume%204.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, S. (2016). The planner’s triangle revisited: Sustainability and the evolution of a planning idea that can’t stand still. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(4), 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1214080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casey, E. S. (2017). The world on edge. Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chakraborty, A., Kaza, N., Knaap, G. J., & Deal, B. (2011). Robust plans and contingent plans: Scenario planning for an uncertain world. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2011.582394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapin, F. S., Jr. (1965). Urban land use planning (2nd ed.). University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chapin, T. S. (2012). Introduction: From growth controls, to comprehensive planning, to smart growth: Planning’s emerging fourth wave. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2011.645273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charney, I. (2012). The real estate development industry. In R. Weber & R. Crane (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of urban planning (pp. 722–738) Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clawson, M., & Hall, P. (1973). Planning and urban growth: An Anglo-American comparison. Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coiacetto, E. J. (2000). Places shape place shapers? Real estate developers’ outlooks concerning community, planning and development differ between places. Planning Practice and Research, 15(4), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450020018790
   Google Scholar
• Cox, A. (1984). Adversary politics and land: The conflict over land and property policy in post-war Britain. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, K. R. (1979). Location and public problems: A political geography of the contemporary world. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, K. R. (1995). Globalisation, competition and the politics of local economic development. Urban Studies, 32(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989550013059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, K. R., & Johnston, R. J. (1982). Conflict, politics and the urban scene: A conceptual framework. In K. Cox & R. J. Johnston (Eds.), Conflict, politics and the urban scene (pp. 1–19). Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, K. R., & McCarthy, J. (1982). Neighborhood activism as a politics of turf: A critical analysis. In K. Cox & R. J. Johnston (Eds.), Conflict, politics and the urban scene (pp. 196–219). Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Drewett, R. (1973). The developers: Decision processes. In P. Hall, H. Gracey, R. Drewett, & R. Thomas (Eds.), The containment of urban England (Vol. 2, pp. 163–193). George Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhart, M. (1998). On the subject of interpretive reviews. Review of Educational Research, 68(4), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068004391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagin, H. (1955). Regulating the timing of urban development. Law and Contemporary Problems, 20(2), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.2307/1190331
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E. M. (1933). Speculation in suburban lands. American Economic Review, 23, 152–162.
   Google Scholar
• Friend, J. K., & Hickling, A. (2005). Planning under pressure: The strategic choice approach. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frug, G. E. (2001). City making. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, J. L. (2017). Growth management theory: From the garden city to smart growth. In V. Watson, A. Madanipour, & M. Gunder (Eds.), The Routledge book of planning theory (pp. 41–52). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, M. (1999). Planning as a learned profession. Unpublished paper to the Royal Town Panning Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gurran, N. (2011). Australian urban land use planning: Principles, systems and practice. Sydney University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guy, S., & Henneberry, J. (2000). Understanding urban development processes: Integrating the economic and the social in property research. Urban Studies, 37(13), 2399–2416. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980020005398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hack, G. (2018). Site planning: International practice. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haila, A. (1991). Four types of investment in land and property. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 15(3), 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1991.tb00643.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, P. (1980). Great planning disasters. Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Han, A. T., Laurian, L., & Dewald, J. (2021). Plans versus political priorities: Lessons from municipal election candidates’ social media communications. Journal of the American Planning Association, 87(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1831401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. (1985). The urbanisation of capital. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1991). Models of the development process: A review. Journal of Property Research, 8(3), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/09599919108724039
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1992). An institutional model of the development process. Journal of Property Research, 9(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09599919208724049
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P., McNamara, P., Elson, M., & Doak, A. (1988). Land use planning and the mediation of urban change: The British planning system in practice. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. (2019). Pragmatic spatial planning: Practical theory for professionals. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Holway, J., Elliott, D. L., & Trentadue, A. (2014). Arrested developments: Combating zombie subdivisions and other excess entitlements. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins, L. D. (2001). Urban development: The logic of making plans. Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins, L. D. (2014). It is about time: Dynamics failure, using plans and using coalitions. Town Planning Review, 85(3), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2014.19
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins, L. D., & Zapata, M. A. (2007). Engaging the future: Tools for effective planning practices. In L. D. Hopkins & M. A. Zapata (Eds.), Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects (pp. 1–17). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. (2019). Limits of fiscal federalism: How narratives of local government inefficiency facilitate scalar dumping in New York State. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 51(3), 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18796511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolankiewicz, V., Nichols, D., & Taylor, L. (2022). Ghostly visions and cartographic tombstones. In N. A. Phelps, J. Bush, & A. Hurlimann (Eds.), Planning in an uncanny world: Australian urban planning in international context (pp. 149–168). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Knox, P. (2009). Metroburbia USA. Rutgers University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kone, D. L. (2000). Land development (9th ed.). Home Builder Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lake, R. W. (1987). Introduction. In R. W. Lake (Ed.), Resolving locational conflict (pp. xv–xxviii). Center for Urban Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyle, J., & Hill, D. (2003). Watch this space: An investigation of strategic gap policies in England. Planning Theory & Practice, 4(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350307980
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marcuse, P. (1976). Professional ethics and beyond: Values in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 42(3), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367608977729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology, 82(2), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1086/226311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murdoch, J., & Abram, S. (2017). Rationalities of planning: Development versus environment in planning for housing. Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, M. (2007). How we use planning: Planning cultures and images of futures. In L. D. Hopkins & M. A. Zapata (Eds.), Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects (pp. 155–174). Lincoln Land Institute.
   Google Scholar
• O’Mara, M. (2015). Cities of knowledge. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Orfield, M. (2000). American metropolitics: The new suburban reality. Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oxford Languages Online Dictionary. (2024). Oxford University Press. https://languages.oup.com/
   Google Scholar
• Pasotti, E. (2010). Political branding in cities: The decline of machine politics in Bogotá, Naples, and Chicago. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peiser, R. (1990). Who plans America? Planners or developers? Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(4), 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369008975453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A. (2012a). An anatomy of sprawl: Planning and politics in Britain. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A. (2012b). The growth machine stops? Urban politics and the making and remaking of an edge city. Urban Affairs Review, 48(5), 670–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087412440275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A. (2015). Sequel to suburbia: Glimpses of America’s post-suburban future. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A. (2021). The urban planning imagination: A critical international introduction. Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A., Buxton, M., & Nichols, D. (2023). Melbourne’s suburban landscapes: Administering population and employment growth. Built Environment, 49(1), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.49.1.132
   Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A., & Miao, J. T. (2023). ‘It’s the hope I can’t stand’: Planning, valuation and new community building. Journal of Property Research, 40(3), 252–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/09599916.2023.2183887
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A., & Nichols, D. (2022). Can growth be planned? The case of Melbourne’s urban periphery. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X221121248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2008). If geography is anything, maybe it’s planning’s alter ego? Reflections on policy relevance in two disciplines concerned with place and space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(4), 566–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1231629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A., & Valler, D. (2018). Urban development and the politics of dissonance. Territory, Politics, Governance, 6(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1231629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps, N. A., & Wood, A. M. (2011). The new post-suburban politics? Urban Studies, 48(12), 2591–2610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011411944
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickvance, C. (1982). Physical planning and market forces in urban development. In C. Paris (Ed.), Critical readings in planning theory (pp. 69–82). Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pinch, S. (1985). Cities and services: The geography of collective consumption. Routledge Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Roulac, S. (1996). Real estate market cycles, transformation forces and structural change. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 2(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.1996.12089519
   Google Scholar
• Savini, F., Ferreira, A., & von Schönfeld, K. C. (Eds.). (2022). Post-growth planning: Cities beyond the market economy. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, A. J., & Roweis, S. T. (1977). Urban planning in theory and practice: A reappraisal. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 9(10), 1097–1119. https://doi.org/10.1068/a091097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sewell, W. H., Jr. (2008). The temporalities of capitalism. Socio-Economic Review, 6(3), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwn007
   Google Scholar
• Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. University Press of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Strandberg, U. (2000). Contested territory: The politics of siting controversy [Paper presentation]. Proceedings from the ESREL 2000 and SRA – Europe Annual Conference on Foresight and Precaution, Edinburgh, UK, 14–17 May 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, N. (1980). Planning theory and the philosophy of planning. Urban Studies, 17(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420988020080321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teaford, J. C. (1997). Post-suburbia: Government and politics in the edge cities. Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Teitz, M. B. (1968). Toward a theory of urban public facility location. Papers in Regional Science, 21(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5597.1968.tb01439.x
   Google Scholar
• Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, R. (Ed.). (2012). Australia’s unintended cities: The impact of housing on urban development. CSIRO Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Valler, D. C., & Phelps, N. A. (2018). Framing the future: On local planning cultures and legacies. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(5), 698–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2018.1537448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valler, D. C., Phelps, N. A., & Radford, J. (2014). Soft space, hard bargaining: Planning for high-tech growth in ‘Science Vale UK’. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(5), 824–842. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1268r
   Google Scholar
• Valler, D. C., Phelps, N. A., & Wood, A. M. (2012). Planning for growth? The implications of localism for 'Science Vale’, Oxfordshire, UK. Town Planning Review, 83(4), 457–488. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2012.27
   Google Scholar
• Wakeman, R. (2016). Practicing utopia: An intellectual history of the new town movement. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Warner, K., & Molotch, H. (2000). Building rules: How local controls shape community environments and economies. Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, M. A. (1987). The rise of the community builders: The American real estate industry and urban land planning. Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whitehead, P. (1990). Planning theory—The emperor’s clothes? Planning Outlook, 33(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/00320719008711861
   Google Scholar
• Yiftachel, O., & Huxley, M. (2000). Debating dominance and relevance: Notes on the 'communicative turn’ in planning theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 907–913. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar