Introduction
The within-nation planning practices critically appraised in this book are
grounded in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and also Britain,
societies differing one from another, yet tethered to each other linguistically, cul-
turally, urbanistically, and through their openly democratic styles of government.
A social conscience and a conservation ethic exists in every community. Con-
cerns for the consequences of environmentally damaging and resource-depleting
actions sit uneasily alongside individual desires to also achieve material prosper-
ity. One consequence is that these Anglo-heritage nations have not proactively
pursued the Agenda 21protocol (1992 Rio: UN Conference on Environment and Devel-
opment). The major difficulty is that government and commerce regard profit
gearing as a religiosity, binding politicians from both the ‘left’ and ‘right’ of centre
into a growth-on-growth mantra. It is little wonder that most politicians, and some
planning operatives, put their conservativism before conservation, property exclu-
sion ahead of community preference, and allow resource plunder in denial of
future generations. Much growth is substantially ‘good’, yet for settler societies it
has not been ‘good enough’ in terms of overall socio-environmental outcomes.
Concern over the global future of course varies from nation to nation. Some
poor nations, some small wealthy nations, and parts of some large rich nations
find paths away from the ‘growth at any cost’ and ‘urban sprawl’ models. A
socially balanced construct for economic growth, incorporating social wellbeing
and environmental equilibrium, is established as the logical future course to
follow – essentially a matter of doing well while doing good. The challenge is to
identify useful and fulfilling styles of development which include a socially
acceptable conservancy component. Aspiring to full harmony is a pipe-dream; yet
a free-for-all commodification of resources is untenable. Attention to the overall
qualityof living, rural and urban, is the sensible way ahead for the North
American and Australasian settler societies.
‘Development’ (progressive improvement in human living circumstances) is
related to and dominates ‘planning’ (putting consciously predetermined public
policy in place effectively). Self-evidently this is true for the New World – particu-
larly the settler societies of Australasia and North America – where the planning
function attracts much blame for the failures which litter those landscapes. What
I have come to understand about regional growth patterning and urban planning
practice is how permanent become policy changes blithely induced; and how in