CANADA, Placemaking Strategy
Planning in Canada is a ‘provincial responsibility’. Zoning is the regulatory mechanism used across Canada to organize and distribute new development. Land is divided into parcels, and each parcel is assigned a different zone. The rules and restrictions of each zone are later detailed in land use bylaw. Zoning allowed incompatible land uses to be separated while protecting the rights of new property owners as the city expanded (Grant 2002) as cited in Thomas(2016).
Planning practice in canada is a “passive activity accommodating the initiatives undertaken by private entrepreneurs” (Grunton, 1991, 101). Consequently, zoning has allowed real estate developers to create an urban landscape and character of divided landuses, ‘boxy downtown towns’, concrete plazas, strip malls, and ‘cookie cutter’ residential sprawl (Grant 2000).
Grant states how citizens appreciate the predictability of zoning, yet find that urban environments created poor sense of place. Carmona (2009,2649) notes that” coding in the form of non-site specific development standards is unlikely to provide the answers to delivering better urban design”. The concept of ‘masterplanning’ as a strategic planning tool that creates a more design-led framework for new development. ‘place making tool is used to encourage more sophisticated land use zoning and reconcile some of its deficiencies.’ masterplanning and zoning ( a gray area) can be used together to generate a more design-sensitive framework for planning decision-making. Thomas (2016)
Since economy is globalising and where international exchanges between planners are multiplying. (Booth, 2011) planning is not simply ‘a subset of the political, institutional, or ideological interests … it redefines politics, producing new sources of power and legitimacy, changing the force field, sometimes for better, sometimes not, and rarely in predictable ways'(330)’ Sandercock (2005)
the growing demand for comparative research projects in the framework established by the EU’s Community Initiatives, such as INTERREG, makes clear that planning culture is a component which is deeply embedded in a nation’s planning system and thus needs to be considered in any comparative spatial research. (Pallagst,2010)
Combine global initiatives with local initiatives, Not letting one outweigh the other is the combination of global best practices and initiatives, but meshed with local practices and local ideas and traditions (Khirfan,2011). Thus, a renewed and systematic focus on institutional dynamics with an understanding of historical trajectories and pathways of institutional and policy development, explain variation across space and time, account for stability and change and, in so doing, equip scholars and practitioners of planning to better understand opportunities and constraints as they contemplate contemporary challenges. (Taylor,2013)
Castells argues that contemporary planning practices in all nations must acknowledge and meet the challenges posed by new technological dynamics that influence urbanism. New technology allows planning processes to be ‘streamlined and automated’ to enable efficient mapping( spatio temporal analysis for example). Planning departments have also experimented with innovative 3D modelling software and virtual reality to improve plan making and community engagement. (RTPI, DIGITAL POLICY MAP)
The systems approach started with a new way of interdisciplinary thinking about the practice,’ McLoughlin’s ideas were not followed, there is gap between the theory of planning and practice, Is the bridge a technical stance or vernacular. Planning practice can be collaborative, integrated and antidisciplanary.