11 URBAN PLANNING

Dr. Kavita Arora

   

    I.Introduction

    Urbanization is increasing in global south but it is alsoevident that effective city planning is here stillmore idea than reality.Urban planning is concerned with the complexarrangement of change within the built and naturalenvironment.This module will help you to learn about the urban planning which considered an important area of study in the urban geography . At the end of this module you will be able to understand

a) The Concept and Need of Urban Planning

    b) Philosophical approaches of Modern Urban Planning Movements

c) Components of Urban Planning

d) Urban Planning Models and their functions

e) Future Prospects of Urban Planning

II. Urbanization: Problems, Prospects and Need of Urban Planning

Urbanization started thousands year back in the Mesopotamia, Egypt, India and China as a river valley civilization .Here they were dependent largely on agricultural activity .With the advent of Industrlisation about 200 years back urbanization accelerated dramatically. The employment opportunity in factories attracted the large number of population .But the last 50 years are known as the years of accelerated urban growth. For the first time in history more than half the world’s population resides in cities. The world’s urban population now stands at 3.7 billion people, and this number is expected to double by 2050. The trend towards urbanization is only accelerating and 96 per cent of all urbanization by 2030 will occur in the developing world. (Forbs, 2015). This also shows that geography of urbanization is again shifted at the global south, which was earlier known as the birth place of agricultural based urbanization but now secondary and tertiary sectors became the base of urbanization. Urbanization presents an opportunity to connect more people to basic needs, making them healthier and more productive. It also presents the risk of overwhelming various public goods, including power, infrastructure, health, and education as these systems adjust to increased demand. Urbanization is a positive phenomenon but if it not managed properly it can amplify existing challenges. The global south is mostly known as agricultural based rural economy. The present wave of urbanization placed strain on developing cities’ land, resources, infrastructure, and administration, all of which are unaccustomed to such rapid growth. The experiences of developing world attracted the attention of Harvard economist Edward Glaeser in his latest research, published as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper in December 2016. He called the recent surge “poor country urbanization.” History of urbanization suggests that urban growth and economic development go hand in hand. But the experience of developing world is mixed. Throughout the developing world, cities have far higher levels of economic productivity when compared to their nations as a whole. But in many other cases, urbanization has been accompanied by low levels of economic growth. It’s good to see an urban economist of Glaeser’s stature focus on the pressing questions of the uneven development and inequality. The most important lesson is that urbanization is a necessary but insufficient part of global development, and must be paired with appropriate policies, institutions, and strategies and planned urbanization.

Urban planning is not a new requirement for urban growth. The history of urban planning is a complex and on-going history of achievement, failure, resilience and challenge. It is a history of both continuities quest for health, justice, efficiency, environment, amenities and discontinuity (global technological, economic and political shift (LeGates and Stout,1998)

In the modern age urban planning developed as a response to the social and economic problems emerged from the industrial revolution. Since then, urban planning has continuously struggled for its own identity as it has interfaces with different dimensions if society. In US urban planning has evolved from city planning and social sciences, but in Europe the planning tradition was based more on physical design, whilst in the U K there was mixed approach. Recently the environment has become a new focus for land use and urban planning. Although the role of planning in society is always remain positive but it has been also criticized as being of limited relevance to a modern democratic free market society

III. Concept of Urban Planning

Patrick Abercrombie stated long back that the aim of urban planning is “Health,beauty and convenience”, These encompass total wellbeing of people. Dudley Stamp stressed on the underlying objective of city planning as the “welfare of the citizens” Urban areas are for their inhabitants and they take care of their all-round growth. It is the urban space which actually provides its dwellers a suitable stage to act conveniently, to move to a place of work with ease and to reach safely and return after earning their daily bread. Urban areas provides its people joys of community living, opportunity for academic pursuits, health and recreational facilities and physical,social and economic growth. Urban Planning therefore “is the projection of team work into a city form which serves as a common objective, a form in which urban development may proceed with order…”

Patrick Geddes insisted that urban planning is the “reorganization of place,work and folk” Its role as a democratic activity is wide enough. Its real and practical approach lies in following the economy and needs of the people.It coordinates public and private sections.It takes into account wellbeing of people,municipal income,taxes and land values.

Urban Planning is a combination of science, art and policy to fulfil the socio-economic needs of the society. Urban Planning is a technique to seek ordered land use ,adequate sites for residential and commercial buildings and channels for transport and communication networks. The main objectives which are inherent in planning include practicability, economic growth, welfare, convenience, beauty and safety. This is done by section of people from the local government who draw up and implement schemes of plan. Urban Plan therefore to control and protect urban environment to ensure smooth life and economic growth within the area.(Rana Page 288, 289) Planning must be able to predict the future requirements and the prediction must be based on tested theories.

Urban planning has always been of chief concern since times immemorial. Evidence of planning has been unearthed in the ruins of cities in China, India, Egypt, Asia Minor, the Mediterranean world, and South and Central America. Early examples of efforts towards planned urban development include orderly street systems that are rectilinear and sometimes radial; division of a city into specialized functional quarters; development of commanding central sites for palaces, temples and civic buildings; and advanced systems of fortification, water supply, and drainage.

The pre-Classical and Classical periods saw a number of cities laid out according to fixed plans, though many tended to develop organically. Designed cities were characteristic of the Messoptamian, Harappan, and Egyptian civilization.Distinct characteristics of urban planning from remains of the cities of Harappa, Lothal and Mohenjodaro in the Indus valley civilization lead archeologists to conclude that they are the earliest examples of planned cities. The streets of many of these early cities were paved and laid out at right angles in a grid pattern, with a hierarchy of streets from major boulevards to residential alleys. Evidence suggests that many Harrapan houses were laid out to protect from noise and enhance residential privacy; many also had their own water wells, probably for both sanitary and ritual purposes. These ancient cities were unique in that they often had drainage systems, seemingly tied to a well-developed ideal of urban sanitation

The Greek Hippodamus (c.407 BC) has been dubbed the “Father of City Planning” for his design ofPiraeus; Alexander commissioned him to lay out his new city Alexendria, the grandest example of idealized urban planning of the ancient Mediterranean world, where the city’s regularity was facilitated by its level site near a mouth of the Nile. The Hippodamian, or grid plan, was the basis for subsequent Greek and Roman cities.

Roman urban life meant more than a means of living the good life it was actually a centre having all the function of its administrative cultural and religious life. A town was also the centre defence and network of roads. This close network of road help in the speedy growth of Roman towns.

The Romans were more particular about managing the town in highly disciplinary method making church more powerful in term of governance. Thus the town’s life basically moved around the centrally located church of those days.

Modern urban planning movement started with the work of Ebenzer Howard. It was in October 1898 that Ebenzer Howard published the original edition of To-Morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform,to be republished four years later under the more familiar title Garden Cities of To- Morrow(Howard,1898,1946,1985) And though there were other foundation stones of the modern planning movement –in Franc, in Germany, in the United States-surly without doubt this was the most significant and it laid the foundation of modern urban planning.

III.I. Urban Planning Approaches

Roger Paden in 2003 wrote that Modern urban planning movement is basically influenced by three philosophical approaches a) Utopianism(b) Marxism and Modern Urban Planning Movement

Utopianism

In order to promote the happiness and welfare of all Henri Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen in early 19th Century proposed to redesign

society on a cooperative basis,based on this common approach the Utopian socialists developed a number of specific proposals to reform the society.Since they worked independently their proposals differed in a number of ways.In particular, whereas Fourier and Owen focused on the design of small scale Utopian communities Saint-Simon and his followers emphasized large-scale plans to rationally transform the whole of society,Nevertheless, their proposals included a number of common elements. They all were agreed on the principle of the public ownership of the land and on the idea that some limitations should be placed on the private acquisition of wealth.

In addition, they argued for the end of social distinctions based on economic classes and for the rationalization of industry.

As is clear from this short summary, Howard’s Garden City sharedmany features with the Utopian socialists’ ideal communities. Not only didHoward and the Utopian socialists advocate the creation of small, self-sufficient, cooperative, and pastoral communities, designed to create fullemployment and insure social equality, but they did so for similar reasons.Both Howard and the Utopian socialists, that is to say, were humanists whobelieved that people shared a common human nature and a common set ofhuman needs.(Roger Paden,  2003)

BOX I : Phalanstère: An Example of Utopian Structure

A phalanstère (or phalanstery) was a type of building designed for a self-contained utopian community, ideally consisting of 500–2000 people working together for mutual benefit, and developed in the early 19th century by Charles Fourier. Fourier chose the name by combining the French word phalange (phalanx, the basic military unit in ancient Greece), with the word monastère (monastery)Fourier conceived the phalanstère as an organized building designed to integrate urban and rural features.

The structure of the phalanstère was composed of three parts: a central part and two lateral wings. The central part was designed for quiet activities. It included dining rooms, meeting rooms, libraries and studies. A lateral wing was designed for labour and noisy activities, such as carpentry, hammering and forging. It also hosted children because they were considered noisy while playing. The other wing contained a caravansary, with ballrooms and halls for meetings with outsiders who had to pay a fee in order to visit and meet the people of the Phalanx community. This income was thought to sustain the autonomous economy of the phalanstère. The phalanstère also included private apartments and many social halls. A social hall was defined by Fourier as a seristère.Fourier believed that the traditional house was a place of exile and oppression of women. He believed gender roles could progress by shaping them within community, more than by pursuits of sexual freedom or other Simonian concepts.[2]In the 20th century, the architect Le Corbusier adapted the concept of the phalanstère when he designed the Unitéd’Habitation, a self-contained commune, at Marseilles.

Perspective view of the urban area of Fourier’s Phalanstère.

    Marxist Approach

Marx is known for his criticism of the Utopian socialists. They were criticize by Marx for First, their endless infighting over thedetails of their Utopian visions helped to split the European left into a number of conflicting camps, preventing it from becoming an effective political force. Second, the Utopian socialists were, in fact, unable to gain the supportthey sought from bourgeois bankers and politicians and, partly as a result,their demonstration communities failed and their peaceful challenges tobourgeois society were easily turned aside. Third, their emphasis on equality and justiceled them to design rigid, authoritarian communities thatwould almost certainly make the problem of alienation worse. Fourth, theirhumanist morality was  based on a narrow conception of human nature,which led them to overlook the importance of autonomous self-developmentand, generally, to champion fixed, static, and rigid dystopian societies.Finally, their adoption of a humanist approach to morality led them to misunderstand the provisional nature of all theories of the good and the inherentrevisability of all social institutions and, consequently, to underestimate theimportance of moral debate and democratic institutions. As a result,  their revolutionary  utopias  turned  out  to  be  neither  revolutionary  nor Utopian, butwere, instead, impediments that blocked needed social change.Unfortunately, Marx did not systematically apply these criticisms to thespatial ideas behind the Utopian socialists’s town plans. In his writings on”the housing question,” however, Engels discussed the problems of urbanlife during the last half of the nineteenth century in some detail and thesecomments shed some light on the nature of these criticisms.

Thus, he faults the Utopian socialists for failing to attack bourgeois societyas a whole. This, of course, is essentially a strategic criticism of these townplans: a solution to the urban crisis must wait on the larger transformationof society. But Marx also explicitly criticized the Utopian socialists townplans and conception of urban space on tactical grounds, arguing that,withtheir focus on envisioning ideal communities, the Utopian socialists led theproletariat into endless competing “doctrinaire experiments [which must] . .. necessarily suffer shipwreck” (Eighteenth Brumaire 601). In addition,Engels criticized these plans on materialist grounds, arguing that socialistswho develop town plans that seek to realize eternal justice and completeequality through architectural means are guilty of adopting essentially bourgeois values that are incompatible with a truly ideal society (The HousingQuestion 31).In fact, it is tempting to apply a line from The Housing Question to Howard’s work: the garden city concept failed to achieve its revolutionary goals because it “has been borrowed directly. . . from the [town plans of the] socialists Owen and Fourier . . . [but] made entirely bourgeois by discarding everything socialist about them” (55). It should be clear that the same type of criticisms could be levelled against Howard’s Garden City. Although Howard was more successful in attracting the support of bourgeois bankers and politicians and while an association he founded was able to build two garden cities, this success actually seems to support rather than contradict a strategic criticism of Howard’s plans (Roger Paden , 2003).

Modern Urban Planning

In the twentieth-century, in an attempt to make their discipline into aprofession, urban planners produced an amazing number of theories to helpexplain, justify, order, and improve their discipline. This theoretical effortwas so prolific that in short order there were a variety of competing andconflicting urban planning theories and much talk about paradigm shifts anddisciplinary crises (Galloway and Mahayni): ” To deal with the resulting confusions, some planners developed a number of “topologies” of planningtheory that group theories together based on the fact that they adopt similar approaches or make similar assumptions . One of the most important of these topologies was developed by Henry Hightower and Andreas Faludi, who argued that there were two distinct types of theories related to urban planning, “theories in planning” and “theories of planning” . Theories in planning are substantive theories of the city. This type of theory, can have two parts: a descriptive and explanatory urban theory (or ‘science ofthe city’) that gives an account of how cities and their parts function andinteract and a normative urban theory (part of a ‘philosophy of the city’)that gives an account of what makes a city a good city. Theories of planningon the other hand, are second-order theories which take as their subject the process of planning. There are two kinds of this type of theory, philosophical methodologies that give an account of how, ideally, planners should plan and sociological theories of planning that give an account of how planners actually do plan. This topology can be combined with a historical topology developed byNigel Taylor.Taylor’s topology, which focuses mainly on the work ofAnglo-American planners, was developed in the course of his philosophical history of twentieth century urban planning which presents newer theoriesas developing out of problems in older theories. Taylor divides the historyof twentieth century urban planning into three stages, each dominated by aparticular approach: the firstmodelled on architecture, the second on science, and the third on politics. (Roger Paden, 2003)

Urban Planning as Design (1900-1960)

Because many early urban planners were architects, who understoodthemselves to be architects working on the scale of a town or a city, early inits history many common architectural practices were incorporated into urban planning. In particular, urban planners implicitly adopted four principles from architecture that together constituted the “design approach”which dominated planning during the first half of the twentieth century.These principles were (a) Human needs (b) Aesthetic considerations (c) highly ordered, hierarchical structures. This approach was visible in the work of Howard and Garden City Movement. Moreover, Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Broadacre City” and the growing suburban movement also adopted this approach. In addition,Taylor argues that Burnham and the “City Beautiful Movement” accepted many of the principles associated with this approach Evan it is said that Le Corbusier and the modernist movement generally were also inspired by this approach. Clearly, Le Corbusier’s “Radiant” and “Contemporary” cities were hierarchically-ordered, Utopian communities designed as finished and integral wholes reflecting underlying moral values based on a well-defined conception of human nature.

Due to a number of spectacular failures (Kolson), the design approachhad been widely rejected by them idle of the century. These failures couldbe attributed to the principles underlying the approach. First, many planners argued that, with their eyes fixed on their Utopian ideals, urban designerssimply failed to understand how real cities worked and that, as a result, theirattempts to realize their ideals produced numerous unintended, but extremelyharmful, consequences. Second, the focus on thephysical aspects of urban areas led planners to believe that poor, but healthy,urban communities were slums that need “renewal.” This created additionaland severe social problems. Third, as Jane Jacobs pointed out, thisapproach’s hierarchical view of the city and its anti- urban bias, led plannersto create sterile suburbs and deaden urban neighborhoods (Jacobs). Finally,the focus on perfecting the city led planners to denigrate diversity andchange, thereby exacerbating social divisions and increasing social problems (Roger Paden , 2003) .

Urban Planning as Science (1960-1970)

These failures led to the development of a new variety of “scientific”urban planning theories, the most well-known of which were “systems theory” and “comprehensive-rational planning” (Friedman and Hudson). Thepractical failures of the design approach convinced many planners that itwas essential to develop an empirically-grounded scientific theory of urbanlife. Systems theory, therefore, was the obvious alternative. Thesystems approach,cities were understood to be ongoing, ever-changing, primarily-social systems, planners took their task to be one of managing these systems so as to maximize short-run benefits while avoiding long-term disasters.

Systems theorywas a purely descriptive and predictive urban theory and,as such, was the polar opposite of design theories which were purely normative urban theories. Unfortunately, this emphasis on science and systems ledsystems theorists to ignore the essential value dimension of urban planningpractice. Instead of developing and defending a normative urban theory, systems theorists almost completely ignored the normative dimensions of urbanplanning, arguing that the task of an urban planner was simply to “optimizethe functioning of the city,” as if the city were a type of machine (Taylor 78).

The advantage of this approach was that it allowed values to enter the planning process, without requiring that they be philosophically justified. Instead, planners argued that, as neutral professionals, they must adopt as their sole value, “the public good,” as determined through some neutral, rational procedure. Given this rational approach to decision making,

systems theory and comprehensive-rational planning theory formed a complete approach to urban planning that promised to put urban planning on apurely scientific basis. Unfortunately this promise could not be redeemed. First, systems theory did not produce the kind of accurate predictive urban theories theapproach required. This may have been due to relative lack of detailed empirical research on various urban subsystems or it may have been due to an underlying ideological blindness (Taylor 75-91). At any rate, systems theory did not attain the scientific status to which it aspired (Roger Paden, 2003).

Urban Planning as Politics (1970-1990)

These criticisms of the scientific approach to planning led some planners to adopt an explicitly political approach to planning. If urban planning decisions cannot be rationally justified and if they are inherently political, then planning it self must become explicitly political. This argument led to what might be called a “democratic turn” in planning theory which holds that planners should give up their pretensions of neutral expertise and embrace an explicitly political role.

There are a number of ideas as to how to bring the community into the planning process. At one extreme is Paul Davidoffs “advocacy planning” whichis based on a model adapted from the legal profession, inwhich planners areresponsible to their clients and unabashedly seek to express and achievetheir client’s interests.” On this view, the planner is to bring the community?and particularly those who have historically been excluded?into theplanning process by personally representing their interests. At the otherextreme is “communicative planning” which is based on a model drawn from Jorgen Habermas’s work. On this view, the role of the planner is tocreate a planning environment that welcomes all parties and facilitatesundistorted communication. In this quasi-ideal speech situation, the pubiccan freely discuss plans and make trulydemocratic decisions as towhat projects to pursue. Here, planners are not to act as advocates, nor as experts,but instead they are simply to work to maintain the proper environment toinsure a fully democratic process (Forester, Planning in the Face of Powerand The Deliberative Planner). Marx criticize these attempts tobring about economic equality without greater political changes. Second, according to the strategic criticism, as equity and advocacy plannersare employees of the state, they will be unable to use their position effectively to challenge the existing political order in such a direct way.it is simply a mistake to theorize aboutWhen Faludi’s and Taylor’s topologies are combined they reveal howurban planning theory developed over the course of the twentieth century.

At the beginning of the century urban planning theory rested on a number ofpurely normative urban theories. The practical failure of these theories ledto the development of several purely descriptive urban theories that werecombined in various ways with a set of rational choice methodologies inhopes of producing purely scientific approach to urban planning. Thesehopes were undercut by the difficulties inherent in any attempt to developan empirically well-grounded science of the city. In addition, sociologicaltheories of planning revealed that the conceptions of the public good wereessentially contestable and that, therefore, these conceptions conceal a political agenda.

Marx urban planning as this only leads to endless debates and paralyzing confusions. Urban planning it would seem, should become a practice without atheory (Roger Paden , 2003).

III.II.Aims and Objectives of Urban Planning

To create and promote healthy conditions and environments for all the people

    To make right use of the land for right purpose

    To ensure orderly development

To provide social, economic and recreational amenities to all

To preserve the individuality of the town

To preserve the aesthetics in the design of all elements of a city plan

III.III. Components of Urban Planning

    III.IV.Urban Planning Models

One of the great contribution of planning to urban policy has been the development and application of models which in turn became institutionalized and professionalized.(Batty) Models represent valuable pedagogic tools for teaching and learning and have been employed extensively in urban geography to interpret the complexity of urban environments. The use of models in urban geography pre dates the advent of positivist philosophy and the spatial science perspective of the 1950 having been introduced in the work of Park, Burgess and others . In practice the legion of urban models comprises cohorts of paradigms of varying types. These models were based on different perspective like ecological perspective which primarily focuses on the internal social composition and land use structure of the city ,political economy based models analysed the inter-relationship between state and capital and its effect on urban form and function and the model based on post modern perspective were emphasised on the importance of human difference in determining the nature of an urban area.

But when we are discussing about urban planning model they falls into four(subjects) general classes-land use, transportation ,population and economic activity oriented models. The urban planning model developed generally for the purpose of planning these subjects or manipulating them. These model perform three basic functions projecting the future of the subject, allocating the subject into subsets and transforming the subject by deriving another subject from it. Most models are composites of these functions .Urban planning models are either theory based or theoretically inspired. It is impossible to make a theory less model. The underlying theory of an urban planning model is that set of relationships, stated or implied , which is assumed to prevail between the subject of the model and the larger environment for examples theory based models are those employing the principle of gravity, market theory or location theory. On the bases of theory urban planning models can be classified into two categories first is the Micro-analytic behaviour or choice models and Macro-analytic growth forces or index models.Economic models based on concepts of rational choice, market behaviour and equilibrium comprise one class of behavioural models.Another class of behavioural models is organised around multifactor decision making processes these known as general preference models these systems use the concept of choice as determined by such factors as household budgets, household activity patterns and taste norms.Models based on macro-analytic growth forces assume statisticalModels based on macro-analytic growth forces assume statistical stability, rationality and regularity in describing mass behaviour. The dynamics of human behaviour and urban growth are based on assumptions about social forces rather than individual decisions.The gravity model is purest in this class. Another class of growth-force model-the trend models-analyzes historical data to determine past trends of behaviour and growth. With these trends the model builder establishes a set of equations to describe observed behaviour, usually employing regressionanalysis. The EMPIRIC Land Use Model is an example of a trend model. Growth index models constitute yet another class of growth-force models. These are systems of equations using both implicit and explicit assumptions. Some are derived using intuition alone because of the lack of theory or the absence of data; others are calibrated using theory and data to deduce behaviour. These models frequently are systems of equations derived through the use of pragmatic functionalism. The Econometric Model of Metropolitan Employment and Population Growth is an example of Growth Index Model. A city planner often needs to know how demand changes in some industries, both nationally and regionally, will affect the level of production and employment-in hisplan area. Input-output analysis provides a method of answering this question by enabling him to take into account structural inter-relationships among industries. The classic input-output model assumes that purchases made by each industry are proportional to its output, and that no basic change takes place in this relationship. Thus industry and aggregate demand are the driving forces of the model. Projection of a Metropolis-New York City uses an input-output model to predict, for the years 1975 and 1985, employment, output and value added by- industry, as well as a breakdown of these magnitudes by type of demand. The operational method of a model is the technique(s) employed to project, allocate or convert the input data of the model’s subject. A model may process its input data into output by using, for example, regression equations, mathematical programming, or simulation. Several operational methods are sometimes used in a single large model; sub models frequently generate supplemental data, which in turn are used as inputs for other stages of the process. The Pittsburgh Urban Renewal Simulation Model illustrates this technique: one submodel estimates industrial land use, another population, a third economic activity, and so forth.Three classes of analytic technique are sufficient to describe the operational method of most urban planning models: econometric forms, mathematical programming, and simulation.

Econometric techniques have been developed by statistical economists engagedin derivation and test of economic theory. These include such well-known techniquesas regression, input-output, and Markov processes, which are particularly usefulfor processing masses of data. As a group, these are replicative methods, requiringno human judgment in their operation. Mathematical programming models are generally of three forms, linear, quadraticor dynamic.

Linear programming models are closed analytic systems with a singleobjective function: A solution to the model optimizes the objective function subjectto given constraints. The use of such models presupposes the existence of criteria ofoptimization, requiring a consensus difficult to achieve in urban planning. Since themodel focuses on a single goal, it can present a rather simplistic view of the world.

Dynamic and quadratic programming have the potential for handling both discreteand nonlinear objective functions as well as the potential for introducing a dimensionof time, which linear programming cannot do. To our knowledge, no urban planningmodels now exist in these catego23456ries. However, as the mathematical and computerprocedures for handling problems of increased complexity by these techniques aredeveloped, we can expect some applications to urban models.

Simulation,strictly speaking, simulation refers to the way in which a model is used rather thanto the structure of the model itself. However, it is sometimes possible to distinguishsimulation models from analytic models on the basis of mathematical structure. Simulation models are powerful techniques for producing conditional forecasts.890-

They allow the planner to act out in the computer laboratory the behaviour of anurban system under varying conditions. By simulation one can observe directlypotential effects of policy changes, alternative planning strategies, or new developmenttactics. “Other Analytic Forms” catch-all category for mathematical expressions that do not fit the econometricor mathematical programming categories. They are open systems of exponential,logarithmic or linear equations, without objective functions, used to represent urbanrelationships.

Classification of Some Models

Source:Maurice D. Kilbridge, Robert P. O’Block and Paul V. Teplitz,, A Conceptual Framework for Urban Planning Models, Management Science, Vol. 15, No. 6, Application Series (Feb., 1969), pp. B246-B266

Maurice D. Kilbridge, Robert P. O’Block and Paul V. Teplitz believe that urban models have not yet begun to fulfil their potential as planning tools. Mostof those now available are costly, clumsy and inadequate reflections of reality. Aswith all abstract models of human phenomena, the essential problem is to make themcomplex enough to reflect the real world, while keeping them simple enough to solve.Urban phenomena are mostly untidy and ill-structured, containing objective andsubjective elements, distortions and discontinuities. They depend for their solutionson the collection and organization of vast amounts of empirical data. And the growth of urban models is hampered on a broad scale by non-availability ofspecific theories andbetter organized data.

III.V.Future Prospects of Urban Planning

Urban Planning is important for urban development, urban regeneration ,renewal as well as building climate change resilience and enhancing climate sustainability. As the urbanization is increasing planning regain the support and endorsement recently through the New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development Goal in UN Habitat 2016

The need of the hour is the public participation and the development of co creation and co-planning capacity with stakeholders impacted by planned development.

Inter- disciplinary skills can help in the planning of future cities because looking at the present trend we can assume that shape and scale of the future cities will be radically different from the cities builta century ago.

Planning curriculum and education need to be revised and updated to ensure that planners have the competency and skill required for the planning challenges that society face.

Planning practice now demand from planning education is to prepare future practitioners to be able to help shape alternative future this may include closer concern with technology for planning the smart cities but at the same time we need to consider the environment and the science of ecology so that sustainability can be maintained.

Planning paradigms are changing but need of the urban planning  as an instrument to making places better has remained constant.

V. Summing Up

The study of urban planning and urban land policy becomes more relevant with the increasing urbanization in global south which is known as developing world too. Urban planners need to examinee old policies and writing new ones to achieve a fairer, more balanced distribution of public resources in the built environment. Planners should collaborate with city residents as well as colleagues in economic development, transportation, education, housing, social services, and parks and recreation to plan strategically for greater opportunities and better life for urban residents. Their goal should be to make cities more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable by providing transportation options, safe street networks, affordable housing, and access to jobs, good schools, health care, healthy food, and green space.

References

• P. T. Kivell and I. McKay, Public Ownership of Urban Land, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 13, No. 2 (1988), pp. 165-178
• Patrick McAuslan,Land Policy: A Framework for Analysis and Action, Journal of African Law, Vol. 31, No. 1/2, Essays in Honour of A. N. Allott (Spring, 1987 ), pp. 185-206
• Maurice D. Kilbridge, Robert P. O’Block and Paul V. Teplitz, A Conceptual Framework for Urban Planning Models, Management Science, Vol. 15, No. 6, Application Series (Feb., 1969), pp. B246-B266
• Melville C. Branch, Jr., Focus for Urban Planning, The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May, 1947), pp. 228-230
• Robert K. Brown, The Dilemma of Urban Planning, Land Economics, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Aug., 1961), pp. 260-263
• Biswaroop Das, Urban Planning in India, Social Scientist, Vol. 9, No. 12 (Dec., 1981), pp. 53-67
• Amitabh Kundu, Urban Planning at Crossroads, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 19, No. 35 (Sep. 1, 1984), pp. 1520-1521
• Annapurna Shaw, Urban Policy in Post-Independent India: An Appraisal, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Jan. 27, 1996), pp. 224-228
• ROGER PADEN, Marxism, Utopianism, and Modern Urban Planning, Utopian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (2003), pp. 82-111
• Text book of Town Planning, A.Bandopadhyay,Books and Allied, Calcutta, 2000
• John Ratcliffe, An Introduction to Town andCountry Planning, Hutchinson, 1981
• Arthur B. Gallion and Simon Eisner, The UrbanPattern – City planning and Design, Van NostrandReinhold company
• Rangwala, Town Planning, Charotar publishinghouse
• G.K.Hiraskar, Town Planning
• RameGowda, Urban and Regional planning
• N.V.Modak, V.N.Ambedkar, Town and countryplanning and Housing, orient longman, 1971