Three Thoughts on the Evolution of Urban and Rural Planning Discipline from the Perspective of Planning Technology

In the evolution of urban and rural planning, changes in planning technology undoubtedly offer a significant perspective for viewing the history of the discipline. The technical methods of urban and rural planning serve as crucial bridges in transitioning from conceptual values and strategic concepts to practical implementation. These methods are used to intervene in various processes within urban and rural development. There has been considerable thought on the technological evolution of urban and rural planning. Yin Zhi, from an international perspective, believes that the technical methods of urban and rural planning have undergone five evolutionary stages: “physical planning, empirical planning, integrated planning, continuous planning, and comprehensive environmental planning.”

This article posits that the technological evolution in China is characterized by “multiple approaches and multi-dimensional exploration.” On one hand, China entered rapid urbanization later than Western developed countries. The vast differences in urbanization across different regions, combined with the advantages of being a later developer and regional disparities, have led to simultaneous learning from different developmental experiences of the West in various regions, especially after the reform and opening up. The influx of numerous schools of thought has greatly diversified the practice of urban and rural planning in China. On the other hand, due to the unique characteristics of China’s socialist market economy, urban and rural planning in China has been continuously exploring its development path, experimenting with various dimensions and techniques suitable for China’s national conditions.

Specifically, the technical methods of urban and rural planning are gradually transitioning from traditional static methods to multi-dimensional dynamic calculations. This shift moves from relying on static data such as yearbook statistics and field observations to dynamic, multi-dimensional models based on economics and informatics. The focus has shifted from a form-dominated approach to a comprehensive consideration of economic, social, and ecological aspects. This involves broadening the spatial concept, transitioning from directive management to regulatory and institutional management in intervention methods, and shifting the value orientation from comprehensive spatial arrangement to respecting the natural laws of urban development and encouraging diverse participation in the urban and rural planning process.

Based on the study and analysis of the technological evolution, this article proposes three considerations for the development of the urban and rural planning discipline:

1. China’s urban and rural planning technology is becoming more systematic, showing a spiral upward development. However, behind this technological evolution lies an insufficient understanding of urban laws. The theoretical and technical methods used to intervene in urban development are increasing in variety. From the initial blueprint-style general planning learned from the Soviet Union to the gradually systematized scale-based planning and management system (such as “master plan-area planning-control planning-revision planning”), China has accumulated experience in controlling urban development through planning. Despite some mistakes and detours, the overall trend has been upward. However, it’s critical to recognize that the established urban planning and management systems, based on technical methods, are not founded on a comprehensive understanding of urban development laws and mechanisms. The basic understanding of complex urban systems is still lacking, and the cognitive methods are insufficient. For example, the determination of population numbers in general plans, floor area ratio in detailed control plans, and the specific relationship between urban infrastructure, service population, and spatial layout are still lacking rigorous technical support. The management and platform attributes of technology are strong, but the scientific and falsifiable nature of the content produced by technology is weak. Urban and rural planning should not be limited to this but should aim to build a city knowledge community centered on urban space, which is the core of the technological evolution of urban and rural planning, not dominated by administrative power or practice-based requirements. Otherwise, planning may become a mere public management discipline, losing its spatial core.

2. The evolution of urban and rural planning technology reflects the expansion of disciplinary groups and research backgrounds, a necessary path for the development of complex urban system sciences. However, it’s important to understand the relationship between these disciplines and urban planning in the field of urban studies. Throughout the history of urban and rural planning, disciplines such as sociology, economics, geography, public administration, computer science, and public health have joined the large academic system studying complex urban systems. Each expansion of this disciplinary group brings new perspectives to urban and rural planning, providing tools and methods for understanding and intervening in cities. The understanding of cities has shifted from a purely spatial and physical problem to a holistic and complex issue centered on people. In the large field of urban research and management, urban planning currently occupies a relatively central position. It should be recognized that urban planning and other disciplines are equal in studying and understanding urban laws. The discoveries of each discipline about urban laws and mechanisms should be valued equally. In many professional fields, without the intervention of specialized disciplines, urban planning alone would be an empty shell. For example, the study of healthy cities cannot do without knowledge from the field of public health, and the study of large-scale human activities in cities still relies on computer science. However, because of the practical and applied nature of urban and rural planning, this discipline can intervene in cities based on the overall results of the disciplinary group, not just a single discipline. This is part of the value of urban and rural planning technology. In intervening in the physical space of the city, disciplines used in navigation, public reviews, shared bicycles, and non-planning social policies are changing space through their impact on human behavior. As a people-centered discipline, urban and rural planning should always maintain an open and, more importantly, equal attitude in urban research and management.

3. The process of technological evolution and the stages of social development are closely related to changes in decision-making methods. In the future, the role and value of urban and rural planning as a discipline should be dialectically viewed against the backdrop of technological development and social governance structures. Due to the policy nature of urban and rural planning, planning inevitably becomes a manifestation of decision-making methods: the top-down decision-making of the planned economy era brought about blueprint-style general planning. Since 2000, discussions on elite politics and scientific development have led to a series of strategic plans, such as the Guangzhou Strategic Plan. In the subsequent process of citizenization, the wave of participatory planning has gradually risen. Government proposals for city operation and institutional design in the face of urban renewal and spatial production reflect the gradual adjustment of planning in response to decision-making methods.

Regarding the role of urban planning, some suggest that decisions made by urban planners are not as effective as those made by local government leaders, even when based on research. The author agrees that making a relatively optimal decision in a short time in the face of complex issues is an important manifestation of the decision-maker’s management and decision-making abilities, but this capability is based on the decision-maker’s position and the comprehensiveness of the information they possess. Some believe that the role of the planning discipline is not to be a decision-maker but an advisor and important executor for decision-makers. If so, this advisor is not unique and whether it is the main one depends on the broader development context.

Therefore, what planning should ultimately form is not a discipline and technical framework that satisfies the intentions and requirements of a specific project, but a framework that realizes public interest through space. It should be an advisor and executor for the government in maximizing public interest through spatial means, not an advisor and executor for all spatial issues. In this framework, on one side is the market, which will not contribute more to the public interest than necessary but is highly dependent on important public goods. On the other side is the government, whose lack of understanding of the market and difficulty in judging development issues may lead to decisions that go against public interest at a specific time and place, or may temporarily overlook local interests for the sake of overall benefits. Planning should make adjustments and strike a balance in these scenarios. From this perspective, the problems solved by decision-makers’ intuitive decisions and the problems that planning needs to solve are not the same. China has been under top-down management for thousands of years, leading to a decision-making mode in planning based on intuition. As the social governance structure becomes increasingly diversified, the public and spatial attributes of planning are important competitive advantages in the new era.