Why do masterplans fail?

Abstract

Planning systems are in general addressed to make spatial projects conform to a plan, by assigning use rights in land through legally binding zoning maps and implementation rules, as it was possible to predict and impose sequences of actions and reactions in the realm of urban development. The cultural ideals of hierarchy and of dirigisme, based on the assumption that the State is the keeper of the collective interest, lie at the root of such ‘conforming’ setting of modern planning systems. Neither the reiterated evidence of failure nor the acknowledgment that collective interest is usually the primary victim of planning ineffectiveness have led to conceive true alternatives so far. However, the exception of few countries where plans are non-binding and public authorities can evaluate which specific development projects are deserving new land use rights (the UK is one rare but prominent example), on the one hand, and the increasing experience of EU urban and spatial development programmes implying responsible evaluation mechanisms for co-funding projects, on the other, might let reflect about a possible model of ‘performing’ planning system