Realisation Mechanisms for the Public Interest in Successful Urban Development Plans, with An Emphasis on Planning Theories of the Second Half of the 20th Century

Document Type : Original Article


1 MSc Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tehran University of Art

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tehran University of Art


What is known today as urban planning is perhaps conceived at a time when urban growth and its associated issues had reached the point of endangering the public interest with an unfair distribution of resources. This situation prompted urban planners to intervene in order to mitigate the conditions, bringing about a relatively balanced status into the need-resource dialectics. public interest is a recurring underlying issue for planning, and hence the need for further investigations.
The current research is an attempt to explain realisation mechanisms for the public interest. The adopted approach is qualitative, with document-based methods used for data collection. Examples of the urban revitalisation plan for Medellín city in Columbia, the regeneration of Regent Park district in Toronto, the Zuidas Vision Plan, and the strategic development plan for Sydney—all internationally supported and evidently successful—are studied and analysed. Combining planning theories and content analysis of successful urban development plans, the research results in a public interest realisation mechanism diagram rendering them as processes. The main criteria for this diagram are fair distribution of resources, attention to environmental issues, social inclusion, housing, employment, interests-seeking, power networks, social communications and interactions, prompting social activism, Consciousness, and ethical commitments, norms and values; all illustrated in a network of relations in order to help planners ad planning processes realise the public interest.


اجلالی، پرویز و همکاران. نظریة برنامهریزی: دیدگاههای سنتی و جدید، تهران: اَگه، 1391.
آلمندینگر، فیلیپ و تئودور جونز. آیندة برنامهریزی: چشماندازهای نو در نظریة برنامهریزی، ترجمة عارف اقوامی مقدم، تهران: آذرخش، 1387.
ایمان، محمدتقی و محمودرضا نوشادی. «تحلیل محتوای کیفی»، در پژوهش در علوم انسانی، ش 2 (پاییز و زمستان 1390)، ص 15-44.
ایمان، محمدتقی و اسفندیار غفارینسب. «تعمیمپذیری و چالشهای آن در تحقیقات کیفی»، در پژوهش در علوم انسانی، ش1 (بهار و تابستان 1392)، ص 35- 50.
بنکدار، احمد و دیگران. سیدنی شهری پایدار تا سال 2030: برنامة توسعة راهبردی شهر سیدنی، تهران: پژوهشکدة فرهنگ و هنر، 1389.
رفیعیان، مجتبی و سکینه معروفی.
«نقش و کاربرد رویکرد برنامهریزی ارتباطی در نظریههای نوین شهرسازی»، در معماری و شهرسازی آرمانشهر، ش 7 (پاییز و زمستان 1390)، ص 113- 120.
سعیدی رضوانی، هادی و فرشاد نوریان. «شهرسازی عدالتمحور: رهیافتی پیشرو در برنامهریزی شهری»، در مطالعات شهری، ش 12 (پاییز 1393)، ص 47- 57.
طرهانى، حسین. سازوکارهاى تحقق منفعت عمومى در طرحهاى موفق توسعة شهرى در جهان با تأکید بر نظریههاى شهرسازى نیمة دوم سده بیستم. پایاننامة کارشناسى ارشد، استاد راهنما: پروین پرتوى، رشتة برنامهریزى شهرى، دانشکدة معمارى و شهرسازى، دانشگاه هنر تهران، 1395.
عبدی دانشپور، زهره. درآمدی بر نظریههای برنامهریزی با تأکید ویژه بر برنامهریزی شهری، تهران: دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، 1387.
معززی مهرطهران، امیرمحمد و همکاران. «در جستجوی شهر عدالتمحور با تأکید و واکاوی مفهوم عدالت فضایی»، در مجموعه مقالات اولین همایش ملی در جستجوی شهر فردا واکاوی مفاهیم و مصادیق در شهر اسلامیـ ایرانی، تهران، شرکت دیبا افق رایا، 1393.
مهدیزاده. جواد. برنامهریزی راهبردی توسعة شهری (تجربیات اخیر جهانی و جایگاه آن در ایران)، تهران: شرکت طرح و نشر پیام سیما، 1386.
هیلیر، جین. سایههای قدرت، ترجمة کمال پولادی، تهران: جامعة مهندسان مشاور ایران، 1388.
Alexander, E.R. “The Public Interest in Planning: from Legitimation to Substantive Plan Evaluation”, In Planning theory, 1(3) (2002), pp. 226–249.
Amsterdam City Council. Zuidas Vision Document, 2009.
Bivins T.H. “Public Relations, Professionalism, and the Public Interest”, in Journal of Business Ethics, 12(2) (1993), pp. 117–126.
Blanco, C. & H. Kobayashi. “Urban Transformation in Slum Districts through Public Space Generation and Cable Transportation at Northeastern Area: Medellin, Colombia”, in Journal of International Social Research, 2 (8) (2009), pp. 75-90.
Campbell, H. & R. Marshall. “Utilitarianism’s Bad Breath? A Re-evaluation of Public Interest Justification for Planning”, in Planning Theory, 1(2) (2002), pp. 163–187.
Campbell, S. & S. Fainstein. Reading in Planning Theory, Wallingford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996.
City of Amesterdam. Building Blocks: Zuidas Vision Document 2015, 2016.
City of Sydney. Sustainable Sydney 2030 Community Strategic Plan, 2014, Avialable at at
Dessau Institute of Architecture. Amsterdam Housing, Anhalt University, 2012.
Fainstein, S. “New Directions in Planning Theory”, in Urban Affairs Review, 35(4) (2000), pp. 451-478.
Fainstein, S. The Just City, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2010.
Flathman, R.E. The Public Interest: An Essay Concerning the Normative Discourse of Politics, New York: Wiley, 1966.
Healey, P. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1997.
Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction. Gold 2008 Latin America: Urban Integration of an Informal Area, Medellín, Colombia, 2008, Available at
________ . Regional and Global Holcim Awards Competitions for Sustainable Construction Projects and Visions, 2009, Available at
Howe, E. “Professional Roles and the Professional Roles and the Public Interest in Planning”, in Journal of Planning Literature, 6 (1992), pp. 230-248.
ICLEI World Secretariat. Medellín, Colombia: The Integral Urban Development Project: Fighting Crime with Urban Interventions, 2014, Available at
Innes, J. “Consensus Building: Clarification for the Critics”, in Planning Theory, 3(1) (2004), pp. 5–20.
Innes, J. & D. Booher, “Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems”, in Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(412) (January 1999).
Innes, J. & D. Booher. “Network Power in Collaborative Planning”, in Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 21(3) (2002), pp. 221-236.
James, K.J. “Living Through “Revitalization”: Youth, Liminaluty, and the Legacy of Slum Clearance in Present-Day Regent Park”, in 15th International Planning History Society Conference: Brazil, 2012.
Majoor, Stan. Disconnected Innovations : New Urbanity in Large-scale Development Projects: Zuidas Amsterdam, Orestad Copenhagen and Forum Barcelona,
PhD thesis. Supervisors: W.G.M. Salet. Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Delf: University Eburon, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2008.
Sandercock, L. Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities, New York: John Wiley, 1997.
Stiftel, B. “Planning Theory”, in The National AICP Examination Preparation Course Guidebook, Washington DC, 2000, pp. 4- 16.
Stoker, K. & M. Stoker. “The Paradox of Public Interest: How Serving Individual Superior Interests Fulfill Public Relations’ Obligation to the Public Interest”, in Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 27(1) (2012), pp. 31-45.
Toronto Community Housing. Regent Park Social Development Plan (Executive Summary), 2007.
________ . Regent Park Social Development Plan (Part I: Context), 2007.
________ . Regent Park Social Development Plan (Part II: Best Practices for Social Inclusion in Mixed-Income Communities), 2007.
________ . Regent Park Social Development Plan (Part II: Strategies for Social Inclusion), 2007.
Wagner, J. The Regent Park Revitalization Project: Bringing New Life to A Tired Community, Final Project Essay in Master of Arts of Integrated Studies. Supervisor: Nanci Langford. Alberta: Athabasca University, April 2013.
Xiao, W. (n.d.) Regent Park Revitalization, Presented by Toronto Community Housing, 2016