Canberra: The Capital for Change

This is an essay written in combination by Jess Mulligan (Ready Steady Plan), Tom Robb (Canberra Local Man) and myself, as our final Planning assignment for the semester. I know it's long (3200 words), but hopefully it's worth a read.

***

Canberra’s planning past has limited its future development. The City Beautiful and Garden City movements that inspired Walter Burley Griffin’s original designs for Canberra are no longer relevant to contemporary planning theory. The lack of realisation of Griffin’s original plans, the relationship of conflict between Griffin and Australia, and the implementation of secondary planning models have culminated in a confused city which lacks a distinct identity. To create an engaged and forward thinking city, Canberra needs to establish a new planning model, while still recognising its significant historical planning influences. The Griffin Legacy serves as a reminder of the original ideals for Canberra, but should not limit its overall development. Maintaining the Griffin Legacy means respecting it but also acknowledging its weaknesses. Canberra is no longer limited by the spatial bounds of Griffin’s design, and this should be reflected in contemporary development of the city. If the plan cannot be adopted, then it should be adapted to suit modern planning theory. By analysing these key issues, we hope to discover the cause of the problem and propose new solutions for creating a more dynamic and vibrant capital city; a city which represent the Australian people and can be a national and global example.

Griffin’s plan for Canberra relied heavily on geometry, which enhanced and emphasised the prominent topographical features throughout the nation’s capital. The Garden City and City Beautiful movements were clearly demonstrated in Griffin’s design. It contained key elements such as grand boulevards, impressive public buildings and strong axial arrangements, all identified by (LeGates and Stout, 1998). The design was very sympathetic to the environment, demonstrated in the beautiful illustrations by Griffin’s wife Marion Mahoney Griffin. The landscape soon earned Canberra the title of the ‘Bush Capital’, which concurrently likened problems with Canberra’s slow growth to that of a country town. The central feature, the Parliamentary Triangle, was complemented by a large lake which separated the Civic Sector from the Government Group. However, the lake was not fully formed until 1963, with the damming of the Molonglo River by Scrivener Dam. The delay of such a major part of Griffin’s design demonstrates the problems of realisation surrounding Canberra. By this time the new ‘Y’ Spatial Plan was beginning to emerge and Canberra’s boundaries would soon be stretched far beyond the shores of Lake Burley Griffin. Despite this, the ideals of City Beautiful persist, although planning theory has developed far beyond such a physical determinist nature.

The continuous growth of the Canberra region has had a significant effect on the facilities and transport systems of Canberra. The city was designed and built throughout the modernist-planning era, alongside the rapid expansion of private motor vehicles. Therefore, Canberra has developed with the use of cars in mind, reflected in the large arterial roads and freeways which bisect the city. Griffin’s design proposed housing to be fronting parks and residential streets to have walkable access to public transport (buses and trolley cars), that would run along main avenues (ACTPLA, 2008). This shows strong commitment to transport-oriented streets and suburbs. However, Griffin’s design was for a compact city of 75,000 people (NCA and ACTPLA, 2010). As Canberra has moved far beyond the original bounds envisioned by Griffin, there should be scope to reconsider the appropriateness of his Legacy. Unfortunately, many of the services in Canberra do not adequately cope with the new spatial distribution. The urban growth corridors associated with the Y Plan, while maintaining the green belt status of the Garden City movement, prevent efficient public transport. The ACT government has invested over $1 billion in transport infrastructure, programs and services to support a cleaner, more sustainable Canberra (ACT Government, 2012). The government understands Canberra is at unsustainable levels of automobile use and continues to promote more appropriate forms of transport, including cycling and walking. Implementation of more modern rapid transit systems, such as light rail, will assist Canberra to achieve a more creating and forward thinking identity, while also improving functionality and liveability.

The original unique design for Canberra has since become an idea of the past. However, values and ideals have significantly changed over time, reflected in the spatial distribution of Canberra. The rapid population boom in the mid 20^th century was coupled with the increasing affordability of private motor vehicles, created a pattern or urban sprawl. Canberra was not exempt from this trend, reflected in the ‘Y’ Spatial Plan and its urban growth corridors, which was to provide for a new population target of 250,000 (NCA and ACTPLA, 2010). Although attempting to be true to Griffin’s vision, Canberra has transformed dramatically and outgrown even the more contemporary ‘Y’ Plan. Again, this plan represented a physical determinist way of thinking. Though it did facilitate population growth, the contemporary spatial distribution represents a population of 360,000 spread across an area equivalent to Greater London (Elton Consulting, 2010). This clearly goes against Griffin’s vision for a compact city. The Y Plan did not deliver a population of 500,000, as predicted (NCA and ACTPLA, 2010), so the ACT Government has turned to Griffin’s plan for new inspiration. Developments to the east and west of the city centre, such as the Molonglo Valley, aim to increase Canberra’s population around the Central National Area, which represents the Parliamentary Zone, its surrounds and the main diplomatic areas (NCA and ACTPLA, 2010). Thus, it is clear that previous planning solutions are unsustainable for future population growth and density outcomes in Canberra.

Griffin’s design suffered from in-adaptability due to its physical and environmental determinism. The original design is famed for its strong geometric and axial arrangements to enhance natural topographical aesthetics. While these design principles look impressive on a map, they present spatial challenges at ground level. This culminates in a seemingly disjointed city, with distinct districts which seemingly lack appropriate pedestrian or other transport connections. The movement itself was influenced by the grandeur of old-world European cities, which presents its main problem; the City Beautiful movement was not forward thinking. It was retrogressive, looking to the past to improve modern problems of overcrowding and ad hoc development (Germann, 2010). The physical determinism of the movement was designed for social control and prevents appropriate human scale. Furthermore, the suburban ideal which Canberra represents was formed primarily through the Garden City movement, envisioning greenbelts and self-contained communities, creating a city sympathetic to its environment. However, as previously stated, these greenbelts now serve to separate the districts of Canberra and prevent efficient modes of public and private transport. Thus, the two movements hailed as a solution to the urban crises of overcrowding and ugliness has served to prevent the establishment of a significant urban identity for Canberra.

The plan of Canberra has transformed and evolved significantly. However, recently Walter Burley Griffin’s plan has been overlooked and the Government, who have introduced the ‘Y’ plan for the capital, now heavily regulate planning. The ‘Y’ plan essentially connects central business districts or town centres via freeway links across the capital and this plan has been integrated primarily because of the urban sprawl throughout the region. The remodeling and rethinking of the Canberra plan has been a result of neglecting the Griffin’s original design and attempting to combat issues that have occurred in the past, predominantly population growth. Canberra needs to promote and encourage the return of Walter Burley Griffin’s plan to be able to revitalise original plans and visions for the capital.  Canberra has the potential to illuminate its atmosphere and revive livability.  In turn this will establish an identity for Canberra, not only as ‘the bush capital’ or the national capital, but an authentic identity for its name meaning ‘the meeting place’.

Ultimately, creating Canberra as a model for the City Beautiful movement seems counterintuitive. The city was completely planned, and as such there was no overpopulated and under-designed metropolis that needed improving, as was the main ideal of City Beautiful (Germann, 2010). Australia needed a capital city, not a city alternative. The process of developing the nation’s capital has been an awkward transition through various planning models and theories. The contemporary planning theories are contrasted with the Griffin Legacy, an ideal which was never truly realised, but still maintained by the National Capital Authority. The significance of Griffin’s plan, and the movements which influenced it, should not be ignored. However, the conflict between old and new planning models demonstrates a distinct shift in planning theory which proves the incompatibility of past plans for Canberra. Approaching its centenary, there must be a deliberate move towards a targeted plan for Canberra which represents the needs of the future needs of city but also respects the designs of the past.

The developments and changes of communities can be a contentious issue no matter the socio economic status of the neighbourhood. When an individual’s sense of place is challenged, conflict often follows for all actors involved. A complex relationship between planners, developers and the community has formed within the Canberra area often resulting in conflict. The planner’s role is particularly important and extremely challenging, often having to deal with multiple issues such as new traffic challenges, character of the area and the future of the project. These issues involve a range of strategies to create solutions involving social policy, design and transport options (Forester, 1987). Canberra is no exception. Conflict over planning models has already been demonstrated; however opposition to new developments also occurs frequently.

Throughout the original design process and ongoing construction of Canberra there has been bureaucratic conflict. This has occurred between various agents, including personal differences between Burley Griffin and King O’Malley, as well as the continually changing agencies responsible for the planning of Canberra (National Archives of Australia, 2012). Differing attitudes have arisen regarding the responsibility for maintaining the structure and geometry of the inner city. Between 1921 and 1924, the Federal Advisory Committee was established followed by The Federal Capital Commission in 1925-1930. Furthermore, 1938 - 1957 the National Capital Planning and Development Committee was responsible, then between 1957 – 1989 it was the National Capital Development Commission. After the ACT achieved self-government in 1989, the National Capital Authority was established to maintain the Griffin Legacy. The NCA is also responsible for preparing the National Capital Plan, which is subject to constant review (National Capital Authority, 2011). Proposed amendments are considered when necessary, but all new developments must maintain the character of the national capital. Thus, the NCA is a powerful body able to control to future direction of planning in Canberra.

Griffin’s plans have also undergone significant change due to political differences and lack of financial resources. The original plans were challenged by then Home Affairs Minister, King O’Malley who even appointed a review board to produce another set of plans, which were a variation of Griffins. Finally, in 1913, after Griffin lobbied against O’Malley, his board department board was disbanded and Griffin was appointed Federal Capital Director of Design and Construction (National Archives of Australia, 2012). Griffin held this position for three years, against the criticism of many. After another variation of plans was created by Griffin himself in 1915, he persisted with efforts to realise his vision, however cost became a major issue. Most disappointingly, his extensive lake scheme was rejected for a more affordable option (National Archives of Australia, 2012). As in the past, many planning decisions are challenged that propose changes to the existing Griffin plan. While the Parliamentary Zone presents a distinct and often uncompromising challenge, other efforts for development have been successful, though no less contentious.

The Gungahlin Drive Extension (GDE) was a major roadwork program in Canberra. The controversial Extension saw opposition from community groups, challenging the ACT Government and the National Capital Authority (NCA) at the Federal Court. The Extension sought to continue to arterial road networks conceived from the Y Spatial Plan (Figure 1) which relied on private automobiles as the primary source of transport around the sprawling capital (ACT planning and land authority, 2007). The population of the northern Canberra had rapidly expanded and the Gungahlin region now required efficient transport links to Civic and South Canberra. However, Gungahlin was developed outside the original transit corridors, seen in the purple region to the north of Figure 1. In 1991 the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the ACT ratified the need for a new transport route (ACT Government, 2012). Its design, implementation and feedback would become one of the most highly contested infrastructure programs within the ACT. 

Figure 1: The 1967 Y-Plan developed for Canberra

Save the Ridge Inc (SRI) has been the major opposition for the execution of the GDE. They are a community-based organisation that has a membership base of over five hundred persons, drawn from 61 suburbs across the ACT. They objected to “the actions of the NCA in relation to decisions and planning for the route of the Gungahlin Drive Extension” (Save the ridge inc, 2003) on grounds that it would disturb the native flora and fauna along the Bruce/O’Connor Ridge to the north of Black Mountain. SRI was also highly critical of the NCA with the consultation program and their environmental assessments of the area. “It is not clear how the NCA consultants arrived at their conclusions regarding the environmental assessment of the two routes. The conclusions and accompanying figures in their report do not match the limited reference sources relating to environmental impacts that the consultants claimed they used and do not match other reports by environmental and ecology experts” (Save the Ridge inc, 2003, p. 3)

SRI also accused the NCA of being biased towards organisations in favour of the GDE and limiting SRI’s in the consultation process. SRI stated “the only stakeholders consulted by the NCA consultants, Young Engineers, were proponents of the GDE” (Save the Ridge inc, 2003, p. 2). Such vocal opposition posed a significant problem for the NCA and the ACT Government, who maintained active community participation measures. Sherry Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Participation (Figure 2) notes the consequence of ignoring citizen participation; it limits community involvement and removes power from the citizens. Allowing citizens to have power enables them to be deliberately included in the political and economic process, a gesture SRI maintains was lacking from GDE planning stages.

Figure 2: Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation

It is often difficult to meet the needs to all stakeholders through the community consultation process. Forester (1987) notes some problems with consultations in conflicts with community groups. First of all, the community does not often have the same understanding technical language as the planners or developers, which causes confusion regarding the implementation of plans. Secondly, community groups may not view the planners as their allies. This was clearly evident with the GDE, SRI were highly critical of the NCA, and to a lesser extent the ACT Government. Thirdly, it may be difficult in some cases to identify who really speaks for the community, as some stakeholders may have the capacity to voice their opinions louder than others. SRI had over five hundred members of a well-formed organisation, which is a significant level of opposition. However, it is hard to gauge the amount of residents that supported the GDE, which is another example of the inequalities of citizen participation.

Ultimately, the construction of the GDE went ahead. Despite conflict from the SRI, as well as various structural problems, including a bridge collapse, the project is now complete and provides an efficient transportation link to an increasingly populated area of Canberra. The combined organisational power of the NCA and ACT Government eventually overcome the grassroots opposition of the SRI. However, the efforts of the SRI demonstrated a renewed interest in capital works and the development of Canberra. The increasing scale of infrastructure programs, coupled with moderate population growth means Canberrans must engage with their city or face the consequences of inaction; a capital city which develops without the much valued input of its residents. Thus, Canberrans must engage with the right to their city.

The right to the city is a concept first proposed by French social theorist Henri Lefebvre. In his book Le Driot à la Ville (1968), Lefebvre describes the concept as a “demand... [for] a transformed and renewed access to urban life”. It formed as a reaction to increasing disenfranchisement of urban dwellers and lack of faith with democratic solutions to problems. Lefebvre theorised that people had become disengaged with urban life, and had rejected their responsibilities to protect it. By acknowledging those responsibilities, Lefebvre noted that people could take control their cities and create a more attractive and engaging urban environment. Canberra is well positioned to do so. Canberrans have the highest rate of adults holding Year 12 qualifications or equivalent, and 25% of those people also held bachelor degrees, (Anderson, S. 2012). Canberra is also reported as having the highest median annual income, at roughly $13,000 above the national average (McLennan, 2012). Such a high level of education and annual income means Canberrans have a strong capacity for action. There is a strong sense of capital in Canberra, both in the monetary sense, but also through human capital. A highly educated population is more likely to be aware of current affairs and engaged with their surroundings. However, if residents separate themselves from the community because it becomes disinteresting, there will be a lack of citizen participation and community involvement.

A generational distaste for Canberra persists amongst young people. In a survey undertaken by the Youth Coalition of the ACT (Barry and Robertson, 2012), one of the top five concerns for people aged 12 – 25 was ‘finding something to do in Canberra’. Respondents were also concerned with the cost of living, and only 28% of respondents believed young people were valued in the ACT community. This poses a significant problem for Canberra. A vibrant city needs a vibrant young population to drive creativity. If the cost of living in Canberra continues to rise, the city will struggle to attract younger people. Attracting young people is also increasingly important due to the increasing age of Canberra residents. Time to Talk Canberra 2030 Outcome Report states that in the decade from 2000-2010, there was a decline in the 0-14 age bracket, matched with an increase in the 85+ age bracket (Elton Consulting, 2010). With a strong university scene, Canberra is well positioned for young graduates, however, the Outcome Report demonstrates more needs to be done to encourage those graduates to stay in the city and raise a family and stop the trend towards an aging population in the Canberra region. Thus Canberra must engage its young population in order to meet the needs of this important age base which is growing increasingly smaller.

Coming into its Centenary, Canberra needs to create its own identity. The Australian Capital must establish its place in Australia as a leading city across all measures of living standards, including opportunities for creativity. As the seat of the Australian Federal Parliament, Canberra has a significant role in the decision making process. However, Canberra lacks influence beyond a political level, and its political role is only one aspect of what a modern and dynamic city should represent. Canberra’s development has been limited by such political conflict. Constantly changing plans have competed with the Griffin Legacy to create a complicated bureaucracy of government agencies and planning bodies. Thus, he right to the city concept provides an avenue for change. By embracing and engaging with new planning systems and community consultation opportunities, Canberrans can improve their city. A highly educated and relatively wealthy population means Canberra has a strong capacity to transform the National Capital to a city reflecting the cultural and creative heart of the Australia.

References

• ACT Government, 2012, Transport for Canberra, http://www.transport.act.gov.au/pdf/Pages_from_EDS_ACT_Transport_Policy_FA_final_web.pdf, viewed 20 November 2012
• ACT Government. 2012. Stage Two. Accessed at Gungahlin Drive Extension: <http://www.gde.act.gov.au> [Accessed 18 November 2012]ACT Planning and Land Authority. 2007. Why the new structure for Canberra? f<http://apps.actpla.act.gov.au/spatialplan/1_future/1C_new_structure/index.htm> [Accessed 18 November 2012]
• Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners , p238-250.
• ACT Planning and Land Authority, 2008, Garden City Values and Principles, Available at <http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/6700/gardencity_values.pdf> [Accessed 20 November 2012]
• Anderson, S. 2012. Canberra ‘the most educated’ by degrees, Canberra Times [online] October 26. Available at: <http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-the-most-educated-by-degrees-20121025-288sq.html> [Accessed 20 November 2012]
• Barry, E. and Roberston, E. 2012. Rate Canberra 2012: Findings from the Survey of Young People aged 12–25 in the ACT, Youth Coalition of the ACT [pdf] Available at: <http://www.youthcoalition.net/dmdocuments/Rate_Canberra_2012.pdf> [Accessed 12 November 2012]
• Elton Consulting, 2010. Time to Talk Canberra 2030: Outcomes Report [pdf] Canberra: ACT Government. Available at: <http://timetotalk.act.gov.au/about-time-to-talk/2030-outcomes-report/> [Accessed 21 November 2012]
• Forester, J. 1987. Planning in the Face of Conflict. Journal of the American Planning Association , p434-446.
• Germann, S. 2010. The City Beautiful Movement, Examiner.com, [online] Available at: <http://www.examiner.com/article/the-city-beautiful-movement> [Accessed 21 November 2012]
• LeGates, R. T. and F. Stout, 1998. Modernism and Early Urban Planning. From: Early Urban Planning, 1870 – 1940. London: Taylor and Francis Group.
• McLennan, D. 2012. Capital wages still highest, growing fastest, Canberra Times [online] August 16. Available at: <http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/capital-wages-still-highest-growing-fastest-20120816-24ac0.html> Accessed 20 November 2012
• National Archives of Australia, 2012. Walter Burley Griffin and the design of Canberra [online] Available at: <http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs95.aspx> [Accessed 21 November 2012]
• National Capital Authority, 2011. The National Capital Plan. National Capital Authority, Canberra.
• NCA and ACTPLA, 2010. Molonglo Valley Suitability Study, Canberra: NCA and ACTPLA
• Save the Ridge Inc. 2003. Submission by Save the Ridge Inc. Canberra, ACT.

Australia: An American Planning Experiment

The Reading: The Americanization of Australian Planning by Robert Freestone

There is no denying that American is a global cultural force. From Hollywood to Coca-Cola to the music on the radio, there seems to be an America obsession. Even the Presidential Election will be, and has been, covered regularly across all Australian TV stations. The same can be said for American influences on Australian town planning. While Australia has its origins as a British penal colony, it seems the Land of the Free provided more inspiration than what some may call our colonial oppressors.

Let’s take, for example, the Australian Federal Capital Competition which ran from 1911 to 1912. This, of course, is the competition to design Canberra, and was one of the first global planning competitions. Freestone points out that 20% of entrants were American, and obviously the winner, Walter Burley Griffin, was American also. Thus Canberra, often cited as the pinnacle of Australian urban planning, or at least the laboratory for Australian planning ideas, was conceived by an American designing in the City Beautiful movement. There is no doubt that Griffin’s training in Chicago influenced his designs, and also the Washington Plan of 1901 helped form the vision for Canberra. 

Freestone acknowledges there are distinct eras within Australian planning, all influenced by concurrent American periods of planning thought. However, I think Australian planning has suffered from this adoption of foreign ideas. All modern planning developed throughout the 20^th Century, spawning from a reaction against overcrowded cities and lead outwards by the car revolution. Modernist planning developed around the car, and I think that methodology trapped a lot of planning ideas. The suburban ideal is often seen as American, but Australian also strive for it. Canberra is unique in that every suburb is pretty much ‘suburban’, even if there are only pockets of single dwelling housing blocks in some areas. 

I think modernist planning ultimately suffered from too much a physical determinist ideal. Planning grew in the direction of the car, as did our lives. Now that it is understood that we can move beyond the car, planning needs to catch up. Freeman analyses traffic studies and freeway design in Australian and again draws parallels to American with all state and territory capitals in Australia having traffic consultation undertaken by American individuals or firms throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Both countries now suffer from disconnection due to large freeways which bisect communities and isolate pedestrians. However, Freeman also discusses that new urbanism, both in America and Australia, does not provide a solution. While it aims at improving walkability and pedestrian friendly zones, it too is a manifestation of physical determinism.

Which development looks better?

Freeman concludes that perhaps there has been an Australianization of American planning, rather than his original suggestion. Both are new countries and it is easy to see how they developed together in areas formerly uninhabited. While Europe is often cited as the ultimate innovator of urban lifestyle and integration of human scale amongst the built environment, it is ultimately American influences which have provided the stimulus for Australian planning. Perhaps now, in the supposed Asian Century, Australian planning can look further afield to countries with spiraling populations in limited space, rather than continuously increasing urban areas outward. With an increasing percentage of people living in urban areas, planning must address people living together, in multigenerational developments, rather than in individual houses separated from their neighbours by fences and private gardens.

Is the Just City just enough?

The Reading: New Directions in Planning Theory by Susan S. Fainstein

This week’s reading covered three ideas of planning, two conceptual and one practical. The first section provided an analysis of the Communicative Planning model, pioneered by Patsy Healey, the author of the reading of two weeks before. Healey’s position is build upon the foundations of advocacy planning and community consultation, the selling point of theorist such as Paul Davidoff and Sherry Arnstein. However, Fainstein is critical of the Communicative Planning model for being too abstract. Planners must take on the somewhat unlikely role of communicators and mediators – a very value laden position within the dialogue of planning. Fainstein acknowledges that while Communicative Planning has strong merits, the ultimate result of including the voices of many is that some will be heard louder than others, whether because of their perspective on an issue of their power and influence. To paraphrase Fainstein, the problem with Communicative Planning is that power of speech depends on the power of the speaker. Inevitably traditional power roles have a way of influencing the Communicative Planning model. 

The second examination of planning comes through a critique of New Urbanism. This is a very practical application of urban planning. It is almost a renaissance of the design focus of City Beautiful and Garden City movements. I am really drawn to the concept of New Urbanism, and I think there have been some fascinating projects, such as two towns in Florida, Seaside (which provided the set of The Truman Show) and Celebration, a town build by the Disney Corporation. I used to love the idea of Celebration; of the matching house designs and simple but elegant boulevards. However, after doing further research for a project in Year 12, it almost seemed like some sinister Stepford Wives community with this strict corporation forcing this fake sense of familiarity and old world charm in a still very new community (note the police car patroling the streets below). This is Fainstein’s critique of New Urbanism: it promotes an unrealistic sense of environmental determinism, whereby physical spaces are thought to provide every aspect of social desire. However, this is pure oxymoron. You cannot manufacture designated points of social interaction without living in a city first, much like you cannot tell how a house will properly function until you live in it. Ultimately, New Urbanism shows a disregard for consumer preferences in favour of the grand vision of the planner and designer. 

This brings us to Faintein’s main body of work, the Just City movement. In fact, her most well known work is titled ‘The Just City’, and it won her the Paul Davidoff Award for Social Change and Diversity. This strikes me as odd, as the Just City is strongly routed in the political economy. While this is not unwelcome in our increasingly capitalist world full of globalisation, NGOs and transnational corporations, it seems out of place when improving the social structure for the underprivileged, as the Award would suggest Fainstein’s work did. The theory of a just city promotes Fainstein’s Neo- Marxist attitude to urban planning. She does advocate for a level of communicative planning, but stakeholders must be clearly identifiable and their involvement must result in a benefit to the whole project, not just to satisfy their need for inclusion in the planning dialogue. However, Fainstein disembarks from a pure method of empowering the disenfranchised to advocate for increased wealth for the middle class. As Adam said in his presentation to the class, and as Canberra based architect Sheila Hughes also noted in a presentation I went to, can there be prosperity without growth? I think this is my main criticism of Fainstein’s just city approach, in that it is too deeply rooted in economics to acknowledge a more slow paced sense of achievement through more sustainable means of development, incorporating more aspects of environmentalism and preservation, rather than being purely urban focussed. After all, we study Urban and Regional Planning.