ro | en
Argument › No. 16/2024

Bucharest Through the Prism of Planning Cultures. A Comparative Approach to Local Planning Processes

https://doi.org/10.54508/Argument.16.13

  • / “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, RO

Abstract

The incentive to start this research was the observation of extensive and particular suburbanisation patterns that can be noticed in the periphery of Bucharest. The different speeds and types of suburbanisation that can be noticed in the fringe of Bucharest, in the different administrative units, reveal a different development typology based on divergent planning approaches and the use of planning tools that derive from the planning legislation. This uneven and differentiated approach to planning is made possible through a decentralised and very territorially fragmented urbanisation process. The phenomenon is approached through the theoretical basis of Planning Cultures. The theory is introduced by exploring the origins of the concept and the most recent debates about it. Then the article focuses on the assessment of the Planning Departments in Bucharest utilising the methodological tool of the Cultured Planning Model developed by Knieling and Othengrafen. The three levels of Societal Environment, Planning Environment and Planning Artifacts of their model are evaluated through an overview of Planning in Romania and semi-structured interviews with planning officers in the planning departments. The two contrasting case studies selected, in the south of Bucharest and the north, provide an interesting ground for exploring the use of the planning instruments that lead into contrasting suburbanisation patterns where they work and make the case to argue that different local planning cultures exist within the Metropolitan Area of Bucharest and planning instruments work in conflicting ways as inhibitors and catalysts of urban development.

Keywords

Bucharest, Culturised Planning Model, Planning Cultures

Download

References

  1. Booth, P. (1993). The cultural dimension in comparative research: Making sense of development control in France. European Planning Studies, 1(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319308720210 
  2. Burke, F. G. (1967). The cultural context. In B. M. Gross (Ed.), Action under planning: The guidance of economic development (pp. 68–83). McGraw-Hill.
  3. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (1997). The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies. Regional Development Studies: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  4. Dangschat, J. S., & Hamedinger, A. (2009). Planning culture in Austria—the case of Vienna, the unlike city. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional panning (pp. 95–112). Routledge.
  5. Faludi, A. (2005). The Netherlands: A culture with a soft spot for planning. In B. Sanyal (Ed.), Comparative Planning Cultures (pp. 285–307). Routledge.
  6. Florescu, T., & Cocheci, R.-M. (2023). Bucharest – the role of spatial planning in a challenging urban environment. disP - The Planning Review, 59(3), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2023.2288445 
  7. Friedmann, J. (2005). Planning cultures in transition. In B. Sanyal (Ed.), Comparative planning cultures (pp. 29–45). Routledge.
  8. Gullestrup, H. (2006). Cultural analysis:Towards cross-cultural understanding. Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
  9. Gullestrup, H. (2006). Theoretical reflections on common European (planning-) cultures. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban andregional planning (pp. 3-22). Routledge.
  10. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (Revised and expasnded 3rd ed). McGraw-Hill.
  11. Keller, D. A., Koch, M., & Selle, K. (1996). ‘Either/or’ and ‘and’: First impressions of a journey into the planning cultures of four countries. Planning Perspectives, 11(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/026654396364925 
  12. Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (2009a). En route to a theoretical model for comparative research on planning cultures. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning (pp. 39-64). Routledge.
  13. Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (2009b). Planning cultures in Europe between convergence and divergence: Findings, explanations and perspectives. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning (pp. 301-322). Routledge.
  14. Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (2009c). Spatial planning and culture: Symbiosis for a better understanding of cultural differences in planning systems, traditions and practices. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning (pp. xxiii-xxxv). Routledge.
  15. Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2013). Opening up the compendium: An evaluation of international comparative planning research methodologies. European Planning Studies, 21(10), 1542–1561. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722958 
  16. Nowak, M., Petrisor, A.-I., Mitrea, A., Kovács, K. F., Lukstina, G., Jürgenson, E., Ladzianska, Z., Simeonova, V., Lozynskyy, R., Rezac, V., Pantyley, V., Praneviciene, B., Fakeyeva, L., Mickiewicz, B., & Blaszke, M. (2022). The role of spatial plans adopted at the local level in the spatial planning systems of Central and Eastern European countries. Land, 11(9), 1599. https:// doi.org/10.3390/land11091599
  17. Othengrafen, F., & Reimer, M. (2013). The embeddedness of planning in cultural contexts: Theoretical foundations for the analysis of dynamic planning cultures. Environment and Planning A, 45(6), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45131
  18. Pascariu, G. (2012). Overview of Romanian planning evolution [Paper presentation]. AESOP 􏰃􏰇th Annual Congress, Ankara, Turkey. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301731689_Overview_of_Romanian_Planning_Evolution 
  19. Purkarthofer, E., Humer, A., & Mattila, H. (2021). Subnational and dynamic conceptualisations of planning culture: The culture of regional planning and regional planning cultures in Finland. Planning Theory & Practice, 22(2), 244–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1896772 
  20. Puşcaşu, V. (2009). The house of many different ages. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning (pp. 169-188). Routledge.
  21. Reimer, M., & Blotevogel, H. H. (2012). Comparing Spatial Planning Practice in Europe: A Plea for Cultural Sensitization. Planning Practice & Research, 27(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.659517 
  22. Sanyal, B. (Ed.). (2005). Preface. In Comparative planning cultures (pp. xix–xxiv). Taylor & Francis.
  23. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. (Original work published 1985)
  24. Serraos, K., Asprogerakas, E., & Ioannou, B. (2009). Planning culture and the interference of major events: The recent experience of Athens. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning (pp. 205-220). Routledge.
  25. Stan, A. I. (2013). Morphological patterns of urban sprawl territories. Urbanism Architecture Constructions, 4(4), 11-24.
  26. Staniūnas, E. K. (2009). Remarks on the features of Lithuanian planning culture. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.),
  27. Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning (pp. 139-150). Routledge.
  28. Tynkkynen, V.-P. (2009). Planning rationalities among practitioners in St Petersburg, Russia: Soviet traditions and Western influences. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning (pp. 151-168). Routledge.
  29. Valler, D., & Phelps, N. A. (2018). Framing the future: On local planning cultures and legacies. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(5), 698–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2018.1537448