Chapter 3 Spatial theory as a basis for understanding regional economic development 37
3.5 Development linked to ideas of space, place & region
3.5.1 Strategic spatial planning for spatial development
The review of spatial concepts presented above has indicated the complexities of socio-spatial relations between physical spaces, places of meaning and the spatial patterning that result from dynamic social and economic networks (Healey, 2007). This is highlighted in the work of Castells (1999; 2000) who speaks of the tension between place and flows, and the different understandings of regions which see them as either territorial or relational entities. Given these contesting views and schools of thought, the language of ‘networks’ seeks to give conceptual meaning to the coexistence of these ideas and realities. These networks are superimposed on one another and reach out to others elsewhere either in space or in time (Healey, 2007). In the mid-20th century the amalgamation of these networks was called a ‘city’, but today there is an understanding that our social worlds and simple things such as daily interaction stretch well
51 beyond the area of any particular city (Healey, 2007). As a result, the place of cities and urban areas cannot therefore be understood as “integrated unities with a singular driving dynamic, contained within clearly defined boundaries” (Healey, 2007: 22)
The key argument here is that there are complex constructions created by interaction between actors in multiple networks who invest in material projects and give meaning to qualities of places. These webs and networks of relations escape analytical attempts to ‘bind’ them (Healey, 2007). Because of these intricacies, strategic spatial planning therefore emerges in an endeavour to make sense of the complexity of urban life. This planning exercise, together with an understanding of the socio-spatial dynamics, becomes a governance project focused on managing dilemmas of “coexistence in shared spaces” (Healey, 1997; 2007).
Strategic spatial planning is also referred to as town/city planning, urban and regional planning, spatial planning, territorial development, and territorial management (Healey, 2007). For spatial development to occur, spatial plans need to be put in place which offer indicative guidance for spatial development (Todes, 2012). Oranje and Merrifield (2010:1) refer to spatial development planning as
a process whereby a national/central government seeks to consciously plan for the spatial development of the territory of a country by using the location, timing, nature and scale of infrastructure investment and development spending to stimulate, support, strengthen and encourage growth and development in specific spaces/places.
Spatial plans are “strategic frameworks and visions for territorial development, with an emphasis on place qualities and the spatial impacts and integration of investments, complement and provide a context for specific development projects” (Albrechts, Healey & Kunzmann 2003: 113). In strategic spatial planning, the ‘strategic’ deals with the pursuit of a long-range vision of a desirable and feasible idea of a potential future (Healey, 2004).
Strategic spatial planning is practised to “support a shared understanding, joint visioning, coordinated prioritisation, resource allocation and implementation” (Pretorius, 2012: 6).
Healey (2007) claims that it is concerned with the interrelation between fixity and mobility, meaning that it involves making decisions relating to the allocation and distribution of land- use activities as well as infrastructure channels (Healey, 2007; Pretorius, 2012).
Strategic spatial planning aims to intervene in shaping development outcomes that affect urban regions or neighbourhoods (Pretorius, 2012). Urban regions are also ‘city regions’ or
‘metropolitan regions’ (Salet, Thornely & Kreukels, 2003). Other authors (Bafarasat, 2015;
52 Balducci, Fedeli, & Pasqui 2011; Oosterlynck, Van den Broeck, Albrechts, Moulaert &
Verhetsel, 2011) confirm that the city-region and regional levels are seen as the core of strategy-making activities. Strategic spatial planning treats urban territories as “complex mixture of nodes and networks, places and flows, in which multiple relations, activities and values co-exist, interact, combine, conflict, oppress and generate creative synergy” (Healey, 2007: iii). Because urban regions are too dynamic, complex and mazy, their development cannot be planned by government action in a linear sequence of plan-action-outcome (Healey, 2007). The physical fabric and make-up of urban regions makes it difficult to imagine the development interventions and projects, let alone predict them. This is why strategic spatial planning is utilised to influence urban development and regional economic development trajectories (Healey, 2007).
According to Bafarasat (2015), the normal approach to strategic spatial planning often highlights community deliberations and the actual outcomes of spatial development. The focus is also on ensuring that those entrusted with making these plans promote inclusive spatial change. There is contention, however, around the nature and scale of strategic spatial planning.
According to Bafasarat (2015), disagreement is primarily related to the merger of the ‘strategic’
and the ‘spatial’. This has led to what Campbell (1996) refers to as contradictions of sustainable development – as, for example, when stakeholder involvement as a tenet of strategic spatial planning gives rise to debate around ‘inclusivity’ versus ‘efficiency’ (Gallent, Hamiduddin &
Madeddu, 2013). Policy integration faces the dilemma of whether to be ‘broad-ranging’ or
‘selective’ (Oosterlynck et al., 2011), and issues of implementation centre on ‘plans’ or
‘projects’ (Banai, 2013).
From strategic spatial planning come strategic spatial projects, defined by Oosterlynck et al.
(2011) as catalytic projects for change. These are spatial projects coordinated by public actors in close cooperation with private sector and other stakeholders (Albrechts, 2006a) and have the capacity to tie together multiple actions and actors (Oosterlynck et al., 2011). The projects are strategic in their quest to achieve visions, policy objectives and various other goals embedded in strategic planning processes at different policy levels and integrated with ambitions of the private sector (Albrechts, 2006b). However, strategic spatial projects have been criticised for undermining the universalistic agenda of spatial development by redirecting public investment away from social goals and concentrating development resources and policy attention instead on areas of privilege (Oosterlynck et al., 2011).
53 Having considered how spatial planning and development gives character to spaces, the next section, on place-based development, looks at the way places get developed using resources that they already possess.