Planning iconic Coney Island: an encounter in planning rationalities

ABSTRACT

Planning theorists have commonly explained planning conflict in terms of the imposition of an ostensibly universal set of values that ignores, obscures, or erases local contingencies. Most recently, this discussion has concerned the hegemony of market rationality in planning theory and practice. Within this framework, planning entails the application of a singular idea of what is rational and the marginalization of its alternatives. Treating encounters among divergent rationalities in terms of conflict and domination, however, obscures their indeterminacy in planning practice. Through a case study of the redevelopment of Coney Island, I propose a less rigid framing that treats encounters among rationalities not as inherently adversarial, but as negotiations throughout which a multiplicity of values may be suppressed, created, or transformed.

KEYWORDS:

• Rationality
• planning theory
• urban redevelopment
• New York City
• Coney Island

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Rachel Weber for her comments at the 2012 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning annual conference session where the article was first presented. Since that time, Bob Lake, Lee Polonsky, Ben Teresa, and John West all provided great feedback and good humor at each step in the process. I would also like to thank Deb Martin for her editorial comments and my anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive critiques. Everyone’s help greatly improved my article. Its remaining shortcomings are my own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Carlin is a personal friend and, at her behest, I advised SCI and assisted in its efforts throughout the planning process.

2. The extensive literature of rationality spans across several disciplines. Planning scholars have developed a variety of typologies to understand the applicability of various forms of rationality to planning practice (see Alexander, 2000; and Albrechts, 2003), distinguishing primarily between instrumental rationalities and communicative rationality. The former, discussed influentially in the work of Max Weber (Weber, 1978), concerns itself with the link between knowledge and action. The latter, which emerges from the work of Jürgen Habermas (Habermas, 1985), deals with the quality of deliberative interaction and the extent to which communication is unconstrained and undistorted. As is apparent from my definition, my article deals exclusively with the former.

3. See Madden (2014), for an overview of the two.

4. For a discussion of use and exchange value in terms of a broader theoretical critique of Logan and Molotch’s growth machine thesis, see Cox (1991), Fainstein (1991), and Lake (1990). For an overview of theoretical and empirical debates on the matter, see Jonas and Wilson (1999).

5. The interview participants included: Robert Lieber, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development; Seth Pinksy, President of EDC; Amanda Burden, Commissioner of DCP; and Lynn Kelly, President of the CIDC.

6. Coney Island’s three historic amusement parks have been widely represented in a variety of media. A common point of reference for some activists has been Coney Island, a Ric Burns documentary (Burns, 2006), notable for its evocative night-time footage of Luna Park’s incandescent rides and towers.

7. Steeplechase Park, Luna Park, and Dreamland occupied, respectively, 15, 22, and 15 acres (Jeffrey Stanton, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c).

8. These goals included: The retention of existing business; the attraction of new business; the enhancement of parks and community facilities; the improvement of business conditions and quality of life; and the development of market and affordable housing (Coney Island Development Corporation, 2003).

9. The firms consisted of: Ernst & Young, Davis Brody Bond, Halcyon, Vollmer Associates, Karin Bacon Events, Streetworks, and Strategic Leisure.