Town Planning Review

Re-evaluating ‘public’ and ‘private’ in local development cultures: converging vocabularies of public good and market success in Toronto's New Urbanism

Town Planning Review (2012), 83, (5), 575–596.

Abstract

This article queries the utility of the analytical categories of ‘public’ and ‘private’ in the development and planning processes of two New Urbanist communities in suburban Toronto. Through an analysis of the conditions under which these projects were planned and delivered, it demonstrates the extent to which the distinction between public interests and market forces is often exaggerated and yet reproduced by local development cultures. Drawing on a critical review of hybridity theories, it argues that ‘public’ and ‘private’ should not be reified as intrinsic actor categories, but rather problematised as contingent constructions through which development actors constitute, understand and reflect on their continuing activities and interactions.

Access Token
£25.00
READ THIS ARTICLE
If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

ADAMS, D. (1994), Urban Planning and the Development Process, London, UCL Press. Urban Planning and the Development Process Google Scholar

ADAMS, D. and TIESDELL, S. (2010), ‘Planners as market actors: rethinking state-market relations in land and property’, Planning Theory & Practice, 11, 187-207. ‘Planners as market actors: rethinking state-market relations in land and property’ Planning Theory & Practice 11 187 207 Google Scholar

ALSAYYAD, N. (ed.) (2001), Hybrid Urbanism, Westport, CN, Praeger. Hybrid Urbanism Google Scholar

AMIN, A. and THRIFT, N. (2002), Cities: Re-imagining the Urban, Cambridge, Polity Press. Cities: Re-imagining the Urban Google Scholar

BALL, M. (2003), ‘Markets and the structure of the housebuilding industry: An international perspective’, Urban Studies, 40, 897-916. ‘Markets and the structure of the housebuilding industry: An international perspective’ Urban Studies 40 897 916 Google Scholar

BARNETT, C. (2008), ‘Convening publics: the practical spaces of public action’, in K. Cox, M. Low and J. Robinson (eds), The Sage Handbook of Political Geography, London, Sage, 403-17. The Sage Handbook of Political Geography 403 17 Google Scholar

BRADWELL, P., JOHAR, I., MAGUIRE, C. and MINER, P. (2007), Future Planners: Propositions for the Next Age of Planning, London, DEMOS. Future Planners: Propositions for the Next Age of Planning Google Scholar

BRAIN, D. (1997), ‘From public housing to private communities: the discipline of design and the materialization of the public/private distinction in the built environment’, in J. Weintraub and K. Kumar (eds), Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 237-67. Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy 237 67 Google Scholar

CRAWFORD, J. (2009), ‘Values, networking and the hybrid planner’, Planning, Theory & Practice, 10, 161-64. ‘Values, networking and the hybrid planner’ Planning, Theory & Practice 10 161 64 Google Scholar

CROSS, P. (2011) ‘How did the 2008-2010 recession and recovery compare with previous cycles?’ Canadian Economic Observer, 24, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-010-x/2011001/part-partie3-eng.htm (accessed 23 March 2012). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-010-x/2011001/part-partie3-eng.htm ‘How did the 2008-2010 recession and recovery compare with previous cycles?’ Canadian Economic Observer 24 Google Scholar

DE ROO, G. and PORTER, G. (eds) (2007), Fuzzy Planning: The Role of Actors in a Fuzzy Governance Environment, Aldershot, Ashgate. Fuzzy Planning: The Role of Actors in a Fuzzy Governance Environment Google Scholar

DUPUIS, S. (2011), ‘Housing market trend line bodes well’, Toronto Star, 6 August 2011, http://newhomes.org/articles_detail_2011-sd.asp?id=1066 (accessed 23/03/2012). http://newhomes.org/articles_detail_2011-sd.asp?id=1066 ‘Housing market trend line bodes well’ Toronto Star Google Scholar

GOLLAND, A. and BLAKE, R. (eds) (2004), Housing Development: Theory, Process and Practice, London, Routledge. Housing Development: Theory, Process and Practice Google Scholar

GORDON, D. and TAMINGA, K. (2002), ‘Large-scale traditional neighbourhood development and pre-emptive ecosystem planning: the Markham experience, 1989-2001’, Journal of Urban Design, 7, 321-40. ‘Large-scale traditional neighbourhood development and pre-emptive ecosystem planning: the Markham experience, 1989-2001’ Journal of Urban Design 7 321 40 Google Scholar

GORE, T. and NICHOLSON, D. (1991), ‘Models of the land development process: a critical review’, Environment and Planning A, 23, 705-30. ‘Models of the land development process: a critical review’ Environment and Planning A 23 705 30 Google Scholar

GRANT, J. (2006), Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice, London, Routledge. Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice Google Scholar

HAMNETT, S. (2000), ‘The late 1990s: competitive versus sustainable cities’ in S. Hamnett and R. Freestone (eds), Australian Metropolis: A Planning History, London, Mansell, 168-88. Australian Metropolis: A Planning History 168 88 Google Scholar

HOWE, E. (1980), ‘Role choices of urban planners’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 46, 398-409. ‘Role choices of urban planners’ Journal of the American Planning Association 46 398 409 Google Scholar

IVESON, K. (2007), Publics and the City, Oxford, Blackwell. Publics and the City Google Scholar

JACOBS, K., KEMENY, J. and MANZI, T. (2003), ‘Power, discursive space and institutional practices in the construction of housing problems’, Housing Studies, 18, 429-46. ‘Power, discursive space and institutional practices in the construction of housing problems’ Housing Studies 18 429 46 Google Scholar

LATOUR, B. and WEIBEL, P. (eds) (2005), Making Things Public, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Making Things Public Google Scholar

MAHONY, N., NEWMAN, J. and BARNETT, C. (eds) (2010), Rethinking the Public: Innovations in Research, Theory and Politics, Bristol, Policy Press. Rethinking the Public: Innovations in Research, Theory and Politics Google Scholar

McGUIRK, P. (2005), ‘Neoliberalist planning? Rethinking and re-casting Sydney's metropolitan planning’, Geographical Research, 43, 59-70. ‘Neoliberalist planning? Rethinking and re-casting Sydney's metropolitan planning’ Geographical Research 43 59 70 Google Scholar

McGUIRK, P. and DOWLING, R. (2009), ‘Neoliberal privatization? Remapping the public and the private in Sydney's masterplanned residential estates’, Political Geography, 28, 174-85. ‘Neoliberal privatization? Remapping the public and the private in Sydney's masterplanned residential estates’ Political Geography 28 174 85 Google Scholar

MITCHELL, K. (1997), ‘Different diasporas and the hype of hybridity’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15, 533-53. ‘Different diasporas and the hype of hybridity’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15 533 53 Google Scholar

MOORE, S. (2010), ‘"More Toronto, naturally" but "too strange for Orangeville": de-universalizing New Urbanism in Greater Toronto’, Cities, 27, 103-13. ‘"More Toronto, naturally" but "too strange for Orangeville": de-universalizing New Urbanism in Greater Toronto’ Cities 27 103 13 Google Scholar

NEWMAN, J. and CLARKE, J. (2009), Publics, Politics and Power: Remaking the Public in Public Services, London, Sage. Publics, Politics and Power: Remaking the Public in Public Services Google Scholar

PIETERSE, J. (2001), ‘Hybridity, so what? The anti-hybridity backlash and the riddles of recognition’, Theory, Culture & Society, 18, 219-45. ‘Hybridity, so what? The anti-hybridity backlash and the riddles of recognition’ Theory, Culture & Society 18 219 45 Google Scholar

RACO, M. (2012), ‘The new contractualism, the privatisation of the welfare state and the barriers to open source planning’, Planning, Practice and Research, (in press). ‘The new contractualism, the privatisation of the welfare state and the barriers to open source planning’ Planning, Practice and Research Google Scholar

SCHATZKI, T. (1996), Social Practice: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Social Practice: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social Google Scholar

SCHULTZ, A. and VON STEIN, A. (2007), ‘How to govern hybrid networks in contradictory institutional settings’, (paper delivered to the CINEFOGO Conference Partnership - Keystone of New Governance, Munster, Germany, 29-30 January). ‘How to govern hybrid networks in contradictory institutional settings’ Google Scholar

SEHESTED, K. (2003), ‘New roles for planners in urban governance’, in K. Sehested (ed.), Urban Policy between Hierarchy and Network, Copenhagen, Akademisk Forlag. Urban Policy between Hierarchy and Network Google Scholar

SEHESTED, K. (2009), ‘Urban planners as network managers and metagovernors’, Planning Theory & Practice, 10, 245-63. ‘Urban planners as network managers and metagovernors’ Planning Theory & Practice 10 245 63 Google Scholar

SKABURSKIS, A. (2006), ‘New urbanism and sprawl: a Toronto case study’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, 233-48. ‘New urbanism and sprawl: a Toronto case study’ Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 233 48 Google Scholar

STEELE, W. (2009), ‘Australian urban planners: hybrid roles and professional dilemmas?’, Urban Policy and Research, 27,189-203. ‘Australian urban planners: hybrid roles and professional dilemmas?’ Urban Policy and Research 27 189 203 Google Scholar

STEUTEVILLE, R. (2000), ‘New urbanism and traditional neighbourhood development: comprehensive report and best practices guide’, New Urban News, Ithaca, NY. New Urban News Google Scholar

WARNER, M. (2002), Publics and Counterpublics, Brooklyn, NY, Zone Books. Publics and Counterpublics Google Scholar

WEINTRAUB, J. (1997), ‘The theory and politics of the public/private distinction’, in J. Weintraub and K. Kumar (eds), Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1-42. Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy 1 42 Google Scholar

WEINTRAUB, J. and KUMAR, K. (eds) (1997), Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press. Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy Google Scholar

WOLFE, A. (1997), ‘Public and Private in Theory and Practice: Some Implications of an Uncertain Boundary’, in J. Weintraub and K. Kumar (eds), Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 182-203. Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy 182 203 Google Scholar

If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

Details

Author details

Moore, Susan