Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Urban Planning and the Housing Market pp 15–43Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Urban Governance, Policy, Planning and Housing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter introduces modern urban planning as a response to the nineteenth- and twentieth-century housing problems. It outlines contemporary normative urban planning goals (environmental, transportation, social equity, health and economic) and the significance of housing as an organising force in urban and regional structure. The chapter also sets a framework for comparing international approaches to urban governance and planning regulation, in terms of government structures, spatial structures/urban form and settlement, as well as basic approaches to land allocation and regulation of development. This includes introductory information on key concepts such as zoning versus discretionary assessment, funding and provision of infrastructure, decision-making structures and community engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aldridge, H. R. (1909). The case for town planning. London: The National Planning and Town Planning Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, E. R. (1994). To plan or not to plan, that is the question - Transaction cost theory and its implications for planning. Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 21(3), 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A, 41(3), 617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger, P., & TewdwrJones, M. (1997). Post-Thatcherite urban planning and politics: A major change? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 21(1), 100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, M. (2010). Planning delay and the responsiveness of English housing supply. Urban Studies, 48(2), 349–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, M., Meen, G., & Nygaard, C. (2010). Housing supply price elasticities revisited: Evidence from international, national, local and company data. Journal of Housing Economics, 19(4), 255–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bambrick, H. J., Capon, A. G., Barniett, G. B., Beaty, R. M., & Burton, A. J. (2011). Climate change and health in the urban environment: Adaptation opportunities in Australian cities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 23(2), 67S–79S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatley, T. (2000). Preserving biodiversity - Challenges for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, P. (1995). Zoning or discretionary action - Certainty and responsiveness in implementing planning policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(2), 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, P. (1996). Controlling development: Certainty and discretion in Europe, the USA and Hong Kong/Philip Booth. Bristol: UCL Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, P. (2002). From property rights to public control: The quest for public interest in the control of urban development. Town Planning Review, 73(2), 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, P. (2007). The control of discretion: Planning and the common-law tradition. Planning Theory, 6(2), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bramley, G., & Leishman, C. (2005). Planning and housing supply in two-speed Britain: Modelling local market outcomes. Urban Studies, 42(12), 2213–2244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, N. (2002). Decoding the newest “metropolitan regionalism” in the USA: A critical overview. Cities, 19(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, N. (2003). Metropolitan institutional reform and the rescaling of state space in contemporary western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(4), 297–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34(3), 349–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burge, G. S., Nelson, A. C., & Matthews, J. (2007). Effects of proportionate-share impact fees. Housing Policy Debate, 18(4), 679–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell, A. (2010). Planning for climate change: Strategies for mitigation and adaption for spatial planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 519–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2010). Globalisation, networking, urbanisation: Reflections on the spatial dynamics of the information age. Urban Studies, 47(13), 2737–2745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chance, T. (2009). Towards sustainable residential communities; The Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZED) and beyond. Environment and Urbanization, 21(2), 527–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozens, P. M. (2008). New urbanism, crime and the suburbs: A review of the evidence. Urban Policy and Research, 26(4), 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullingworth, B., & Caves, R. (2014). Planning in the USA, policies, issues and processes (4th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davoudi, S. (2011). Localism and the reform of the planning system in England. disP - The Planning Review, 47(4), 92–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewick, P., & Miozzo, M. (2004). Networks and innovation: Sustainable technologies in Scottish social housing. R&D Management, 34(3), 323–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowall, D. E. (1979). The effect of land use and environmental regulations on housing costs. Policy Studies Journal, 8(2), 277–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, F., Ennis, F., Healey, P., Healey, P., & Purdue, M. (2002). Negotiating Development: Rationales and practice for development obligations and planning gain. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans-Cowley, J. S., & Lawhon, L. L. (2003). The effects of impact fees on the price of housing and land: A literature review. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(3), 351–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischel, W. A. (2004). An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects. Urban Studies, 41(2), 317–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, T. B. (2010). Reviewing the quality of strategic environmental assessment reports for English spatial plan core strategies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(1), 62–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, A., Hearst, M., Oakes, J. M., & Schmitz, K. H. (2008). Design and destinations: Factors influencing walking and total physical activity. Urban Studies, 45(9), 1973–1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, L. D., & Engelke, P. O. (2001). The built environment and human activity patterns: Exploring the impacts of urban form on public health. Journal of Planning Literature, 16(2), 202–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, L., Kerr, J., Chapman, J., & Sallis, J. (2007). Urban form relationships with walk trip frequency and distance among youth. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21(4s), 305–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garden, F. L., & Jalaludin, B. B. (2009). Impact of urban sprawl on overweight, obesity, and physical activity in Sydney, Australia. Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 86(1), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaspar, J., & Glaeser, E. L. (1998). Information technology and the future of cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 43(1), 136–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleeson, B. (2008). Critical commentary. Waking from the dream: An Australian perspective on urban resilience. Urban Studies, 45(13), 2653–2668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleeson, B., Darbas, T., & Lawson, S. (2004). Governance, sustainability and recent Australian metropolitan strategies: A socio-theoretic analysis. City, 345–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurran, N. (2011). Australian urban land use planning: Principles, systems and practice. Sydney: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurran, N., & Ruming, K. (2015). Less planning, more development? Housing and urban reform discourses in Australia. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurran, N., Ruming, K., & Randolph, B. (2009). Counting the costs: Planning requirements, infrastructure costs and residential development in Australia. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Final Report Series. Melbourne: AHURI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurran, N., Austin, P., & Whitehead, C. (2014). That sounds familiar! A decade of planning reform in Australia, England and New Zealand. Australian Planner, 51(2), 186–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. (1996). Cities of tomorrow. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism - The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler Series B-Human Geography, 71(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haverfield, F. (1913). Ancient town planning. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inch, A. (2012). Creating ‘a generation of NIMBYs’? Interpreting the role of the state in managing the politics of urban development. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 30(3), 520–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, M., Burton, E., & Williams, E. (1996). The compact city: A sustainable urban form? Spon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepson, E. J. (2001). Sustainability and planning: Diverse concepts and close associations. Journal of Planning Literature, 15(4), 499–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keogh, G., & Evans, A. (1992). The private and social costs of planning delay. Urban Studies, 29, 687–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. H. (2011). Linking land use planning and regulation to economic development: A literature review. Journal of Planning Literature, 26(1), 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirwan, R. M. (1989). Finance for urban public infrastructure. Urban Studies, 26(3), 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klosterman, R. E. (1985). Arguments for and against planning. Town Planning Review, 56(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcuse, P. (1980). Housing in early city planning. Journal of Urban History, 6(2), 153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monk, S., Pearce, B. J., & Whitehead, C. M. E. (1996). Land-use planning, land supply, and house prices. Environment and Planning A, 28(3), 495–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T. (1978). Why allow planners to do what they do? A justification from economic theory. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 44(4), 387–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, L. (1956). The natural history of urbanisation. In J. William, & L. Thomas (Eds.), Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A. C., Randolph, J., Schilling, J. M., Logan, J., McElfish, J. M., Jr., & Newport Partners, L. (2009). Environmental regulations and housing costs. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile dependence. Washington, DC and Covelo: California Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendall, R. (1999). Opposition to housing - NIMBY and beyond. Urban Affairs Review, 35(1), 112–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendall, R., Puentes, R., & Martin, J. (2006). From traditional to reformed: A review of the land use regulations in the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas. Washington: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauh, V. A., Landrigan, P. J., & Claudio, L. (2008). Housing and health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136(1), 276–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retzaff, R. C. (2009). The use of LEED in planning and development regulation an exploratory analysis. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(1), 67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero-Lankao, P. (2012). Governing carbon and climate in the cities: An overview of policy and planning challenges and options. European Planning Studies, 20(1), 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseland, M. (2000). Sustainable community development: Integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives. Progress in Planning, 54(2), 73–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sager, T. (2011). Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning, 76, 147–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sallis, J. F., Cervero, R. B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K. A., Kraft, M. K., & Kerr, J. (2006). An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27(1), 297–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandercock, L. (1975). Property, politics, and urban planning; A history of Australian city planning, 1890–1990. Victoria: Melbourne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxer, S. R. (2000). Planning gain, exactions, and impact fees: A comparative study of planning law in England, Wales, and the US. Urban Lawyer, 32(1), 21–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(3), 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, W. (2009). Australian urban planners: Hybrid roles and professional dilemmas? Urban Policy and Research, 27(2), 189–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talen, E., & Knaap, G. (2003). Legalizing smart growth - An empirical study of land use regulation in Illinois. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N. (1999). Anglo-American town planning theory since 1945: Three significant developments but no paradigm shifts. Planning Perspectives, 14(4), 327–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, E. J. (2013). Do house values influence resistance to development? - A spatial analysis of planning objection and appeals in Melbourne. Urban Policy and Research, 31(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tighe, J. R. (2010). Public opinion and affordable housing: A review of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 25(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum, 42(3), 342–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, M. E. (2010). The future of local government: Twenty-first-century challenges. Public Administration Review, 70, S145–S147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, C. J. (1998). Public choice, Pigouvian and Coasian planning theory. Urban Studies, 35(1), 53–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, N. M., Evans, G. W., & Yang, Y. Z. (2010). Environments and health: Planning decisions as public-health decisions. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 27(2), 124–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen, M., Kandula, N., & Lauderdale, D. (2007). Walking for transportation or leisure: What difference does the neighborhood make? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(12), 1674–1680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S. M. (2013). Planning for sustainability: Creating livable equitable and ecological communities (Second Edition).

    Google Scholar 

  • White, M., & Allmendinger, P. (2003). Land-use planning and the housing market: A comparative review of the UK and the USA. Urban Studies, 40(5–6), 953–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, L., Frank, L. D., & Giles-Corti, B. (2010). Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Social Science & Medicine, 70(9), 1381–1390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Architecture Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, Darlington, New South Wales, Australia

    Nicole Gurran

  2. School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

    Glen Bramley

Authors
  1. Nicole Gurran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Glen Bramley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gurran, N., Bramley, G. (2017). Urban Governance, Policy, Planning and Housing. In: Urban Planning and the Housing Market. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46403-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation