Planning Institutions

Planning Institutions: Canada/United States I Skelton, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada ª 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Glossary Planner An individual involved in collective processes of shaping or reshaping the built or social environment, on a paid or voluntary basis. Planning activist A planner oriented towards reshaping planning processes and outcomes, usually towards socially progressive ends.

Introduction This article examines planning institutions in Canada and the United States. The focus is on institutions that reg­ ulate or represent constituencies involved in planning (rather than the societal institutions through which plan­ ning takes place), and the national and international institutions listed later (by their current names) are con­ sidered. For reasons of space and focus, institutions operating below a national scale are not included. 1. Professional institutions Canadian Institute of Planners American Institute of Certified Planners 2. Planning movement institutions Community Planning Association of Canada American Planning Association 3. Planning activist institutions Planners Network The article consists of four parts following this introduc­ tion. The first outlines the history of the various planning institutions. This material, in most instances, has been covered in the literature, and only an overview is pro­ vided here, with sources for further inquiry. Second, the current organisation and activities of the institutions are described, and third, membership issues are discussed. The article concludes with a brief summary.

Histories Interpreting the history of planning institutions requires caution. Some authors have failed to distance themselves from the institutions, preventing their critical assessment of the historical record, and consequently have produced biased histories. Others have adopted lenses that identify

INSTITUTIONS

Planning institutions Organisations that represent a sector of planners, communicating their point of view and representing their interests. Planning movement The assemblage of planners and planning institutions. Professional planner A planner whose credentials have been certified by an institution of professional planners.

particular groups as of secondary importance in the pro­ cesses of planning institution formation and development, leading to histories in which the experience of, for exam­ ple, women and racialised populations is unrepresented. In Canada and the United States, planning institutions emerged in the early years of the twentieth century, when regulation and control were gaining some credibility in the context of widespread concern over urban develop­ ment, social reform movements were working for collective provision of welfare, and environmentalists were already warning of the consequences of wanton use of resources. The year 1909 stands out as a turning point. In Canada, the Commission on Conservation was founded in that year under the leadership of Sir Clifford Sifton, a leading business promoter and politician, with funding from the federal government. The commission set important precedents for planning because it showed that when popular concern is high, planning can be accepted. It comprised the federal ministries of agricul­ ture, mining, and the interior, provincial officials responsible for natural resources, and, anticipating an ongoing tension between the scholarly and practice sides of the profession, at least one academic from each province. The commission expressed antiurban senti­ ments, favouring decentralisation and access to the countryside over the congestion of the city. Its overall programme of environmental protection centrally involved the undermining of private property rights, which proved to overextend its base of support, and the commission was disbanded in 1921. Also in 1909, the National Conference on City Planning (NCCP) in the United States initiated annual meetings to promote broad-based discussion on planning issues. Planning was taking shape as an organised activity and the NCCP involved many constituencies such as architecture, engineering, law, real estate, and social

189

190

Planning Institutions: Canada/United States

work. It stood independent of government, with funding from member dues, host city donations, and foundations, particularly the Russell Sage Foundation under the lea­ dership of Margaret Olivia Sage. The NCCP had to deal with property rights, as did the commission in Canada; however, in this case the fissure between reformers, intending to undermine the status quo, and technicians, accepting of market rationality, led to a split in the move­ ment and the technicians persevered. Planners in both countries shared a concern to build up of a body of specialised planning knowledge. A knowledge base can facilitate claims to a scope of prac­ tice, which, in turn, is key to a profession’s vitality. In 1917, the American City Planning Institute (ACPI) was formed to elaborate planning knowledge. The 68 ACPI founding members included architects, attorneys, devel­ opers, engineers, and landscape architects, as well as a scattering of other professionals, and its formation has been characterised as marking a methodological shift from urban design (underlain by aesthetic concerns) to rational analysis (underlain by emerging social sciences). Two years later the Town Planning Institute of Canada (TPIC) was formed. Smaller than the ACPI, it had only 18 founding members. Its orientation towards profession­ alism separated the new institute from the collectivist sentiments that had driven sections of the urban reform movement. Its orientation to property rights widened this rift and aligned the early TPIC with vested interests in real estate. The planning institutions in both countries used pub­ lications to advance planning knowledge. With federal financial support, TPIC launched Town Planning Journal in 1920, and ACPI and NCCP sponsored City Planning Quarterly from 1925. A common trait of both the ACPI and the TPIC, beyond their publications and their orien­ tation to technical and market rationalities, was the presence of Thomas Adams. Of rural Scottish origin and trained as a surveyor, Adams performed an ‘‘institu­ tional hat trick’’ (Stein, 1994: 14) as founding member of these two organisations as well as the Royal Town Planning Institute in Britain. His widespread influence and his utilitarianism helped mark planning institutions with what is known in Canada as the Roebuck/Sifton/ Adams Convention that ‘‘land can be efficiently managed for an identifiable public good through the effective application of scientific knowledge.’’ In 1932, in the economic climate of the Depression, the Canadian federal department of the interior cut funding for Town Planning Journal, and although the TPIC had grown to somewhat under 400 members, it suspended operation. While planning continued in relief projects, in resource management, and in social welfare work, the institution was not sustained during this period. In the United States, the Depression disrupted the ACPI, though public works under the New Deal led to a

proliferation of civil servants involved in or interested in planning. This helped lead to a differentiation of institu­ tions by 1934: the ACPI, the American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO), and the American Planning and Civic Association (APCA). As the names suggest, ASPO represented civil servants and APCA was a broad-based organisation for education and promotion. At this stage, while Canada’s one planning institution was under suspension, the United States had three differ­ entiated institutions. In 1935 ACPI withdrew support from City Planning Quarterly and launched Planner’s Journal, which continues today under a different name. By 1939 the technical orientation of the US institution was consolidated and the name changed to the American Institute of Planners (AIP), and the publication name thus became Journal of the American Institute of Planners. In the boom following the Second World War, plan­ ning institutions in Canada and the United States prospered. In 1946 the Canadian federal government’s Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (now Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation) provided funding for the foundation of the Community Planning Association of Canada (CPAC) and in 1952 for the revival of TPIC, which launched its publication Plan Canada in 1959. By 1970 TPIC had established a professional office in Ottawa, and in 1972 it adopted a federated structure, with seven regional affiliate institutions. In 1974 it assumed its current name, Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP). The CPAC represented the education and reform interests of the planning movement and promoted public participation in planning. It published Community Planning Review/Revue canadienne d’urbanisme over the period 1951–73. The CPAC achieved a relatively balanced gender composition, partly because women were attracted to its orientation, though also because of barriers to participation in male-dominated associations. The organisation was short-lived, however, and when the federal government cut its funding, the CPAC, which had maintained a national office and staff, folded. Some provincial chapters persevered, the most active currently being in Alberta. By the mid-1960s, the planning movement in the United States had become sufficiently robust that conso­ lidation of its progressive wing emerged on the agenda. In 1964 Planners for Equal Opportunity (PEO) was launched at the AIP national conference. The PEO con­ ducted advocacy, activism, and education on housing and planning issues, primarily in the northeastern regions of the United States, and it emphasised their highly racia­ lised nature. It attempted to pull the AIP towards its progressive agenda by lobbying members, running for leadership positions, and promoting motions for adoption at AIP conferences. By the early 1970s, however, the PEO

Planning Institutions: Canada/United States

leadership acknowledged that under its current formula­ tion, the organisation had not been able to foster sufficient activism among its members. Despite having a contact list of some 600 planners in support of its programme, PEO was disbanded. Attempts to regroup the progressive wing of planning over the mid and late 1970s led to the formation of Planners Network (PN), which held its first conference near Washington, DC, in 1981. PN points out that it has maintained an independent focus for progressive planners as the political climate shifted from one of activism in the period following the war in Vietnam, to the more con­ servative contemporary period. In 1978 the AIP was renamed the American Planning Association (APA), and ASPO joined it. At that time, Journal of the American Institute of Planners became Journal of the American Planning Association. At the same time the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) was formed as a national, professional body. One aspect of the history of planning institutions is the level of their membership. (Although it is widely recognised that mainstream planning institutions have been white and male, data limitations preclude report­ ing on the composition of the membership in terms of diversity.) Figures 1 and 2 show annual membership counts over the period 1967–2008, for the APA, AICP, and CIP, the latter differentiated between professional and nonprofessional members. Comparable data are not readily available for the other institutions. The CPAC membership numbered about 12 000 in the late 1970s, and its annual conferences were attended by up to 3000 delegates. The PN membership is currently about 500.

The figures show the strong growth of professional and nonprofessional members over the period. Total CIP membership increased from just over 600 to over 7600, more than 12 times. CIP growth was disrupted in the mid-1980s, possibly due to the recession early in the decade and uncertainty in relation to impending free trade with the United States. Over the 2000s CIP mem­ bership increased rapidly. APA membership grew over 1967–2008 from about 13 500 to 39 000, about three times. Growth rates for APA do not appear to be affected by economic cycles. Since the late 1980s, mem­ bership has increased rapidly for both CIP and APA. Differences between CIP and APA in the breakdown of the membership in terms of professional and nonprofes­ sional status have shrunk. In 1967 the CIP membership was over 80% professional, and by 2008 it was about 55%; the APA moved in the opposite direction, from 4 to >40% professional. We should note that in CIP there is an expectation that many of the nonprofessional members will become certified, while this is not the case for APA. Figure 3 shows total membership data standardised by national population. In 1967 both CIP and APA had fewer than one member per 10 000, CIP at 0.3 and APA at 0.7. In the mid-1970s the density of members in Canada surpassed that in the United States and growth remained stronger in Canada. By 2008, there were 2.3 CIP members and 1.3 APA members per 10 000 population. These figures show that the density of planning institution members is higher in Canada, but because planners may not be members, they do not reflect the densities of planners in the two countries.

8000

6000

All members 4000

2000 Professional members

0 1960

1970

1980

1990 Year

Figure 1 Membership of CIP: 1967–2008. Source: special tabulation by CIP.

191

2000

2010

192

Planning Institutions: Canada/United States

40 000

30 000

All members 20 000

10 000

Professional members 0 1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2000

2010

Year Figure 2 Membership of APA: 1967–2008. Source: special tabulation by APA.

2.50

2.00

CIP

1.50

1.00 APA 0.50

0.00 1960

1970

1980

1990 Year

Figure 3 Members per 10 000 population: CIP and APA.

Sources for population data are as follows: Canada: Statistics Canada. Table 051-0005 – Estimates of population, Canada, provinces and

territories.http://estat.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.exe?Lang=E&EST-Fi¼EStat/English/CII_1-eng.htm (accessed 8 September

2008). United States: United States Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States.http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/

06statab/pop.pdf (accessed 2 September 2008).

Current Organisation and Activities of Planning Institutions The seven affiliates of the CIP, listed west to east, are: Planning Institute • Yukon Territory;

of British Columbia – includes

Association, Canadian Institute of Planners • Alberta includes – Northwest Territories and Nunavut

• •

Territory; Association of Professional Community Planners of Saskatchewan;

Manitoba Professional Planners Institute;

Planning Institutions: Canada/United States

Professional Planners Institute; • Ontario des urbanistes du Que´bec; and • Ordre Atlantic Planners Institute/Institut des urbanistes de • l’Atlantique. The APA maintains offices in Chicago and Washington, reflecting the office locations of its founding organisations AIP and ASPO. It has 47 chapters, generally one per state. The exceptions are: Capital Area – includes Washington, DC and • National two counties of Maryland; York Metro – includes New York City, Long • New Island, and the Hudson Valley; York Upstate; • New New England – includes Maine, New • Northern Hampshire, and Vermont; and West Central – includes Montana, North Dakota, • South Dakota, and Wyoming. AICP is a subsidiary of APA and operates at the national level. PN has 4 chapters in Canada and 14 in the United States. A chapter in the United Kingdom (PNUK) is emerging. CIP and APA maintain a range of programmes for members, including annual conferences, employment ser­ vices, insurance, and member networking. Both institutions are involved in publishing. CIP issues Plan Canada on a quarterly basis, with a mix of short peerreviewed and nonreviewed articles. Since 2003, CIP has partnered with the Association of Canadian University Planning Programs and the Institute of Urban Studies at the University of Winnipeg to produce an annual volume of peer-reviewed planning papers. This appears under the name Canadian Planning and Policy – Ame´nagement et poli­ tique au Canada and is a supplement to Canadian Journal of Urban Research. APA publishes Planning, a monthly review of newsworthy planning initiatives, as well as several specialised publications for practitioners in areas such as law and zoning, and for groups such as planning commis­ sioners, students, and youth. APA also publishes the peerreviewed quarterly Journal of the American Planning Association. Other activities of CIP flow through a series of com­ mittees at the national level. The Policy Advisory Committee has prompted the federal government to for­ mulate explicit urban policy. The National Affairs Committee has led several initiatives. Its First Nations Subcommittee promotes planning in indigenous commu­ nities, and some CIP members have been inspired by the experience of the Indigenous Planning Division to estab­ lish a corresponding institution in Canada. Other initiatives of the National Affairs Committee include a Climate Change Adaptation Project and work in other environmental issues, infrastructure, and urban design. The International Affairs Committee coordinates CIP’s

193

work globally, building planning capacity in several coun­ tries, including China, Grenada, and Trinidad and Tobago. As cohost of the World Urban Forum in 2005 with the Planning Institution of British Columbia, CIP is a signatory to the Vancouver Declaration that puts plan­ ning in the centre of strategies for fulfilling Millennium Development Goals. The APA has a highly articulated structure of divisions that link planners in interest areas through publications, conferences, and networking opportunities. Some divi­ sions deal with population groups and others with thematic areas. The 20 divisions currently in place are as follows: Population divisions

Thematic divisions

Gays and lesbians in planning Indigenous planning Latinos and planning Planning and the black community Planning and women

City planning and management County planning Economic development Environment, natural resources, energy Federal planning Housing and community development International New urbanism Planning and law Private practice Regional and intergovernmental planning Small town and rural planning Technology Transportation planning Urban design and preservation

The AICP is a subsidiary of the APA, with main activities in certifying professional planners, setting ethical stan­ dards, and developing the knowledge base. Its quarterly publication Practicing Planner is available to professionally certified planners. PN focuses on linking and supporting members and fostering their communication, through the quarterly Progressive Planning Magazine, as well as maintaining information on its website and distributing an electronic newsletter and list serves. Local chapters engage in education work and activism on planning issues.

Membership Issues Membership in CIP is accessed through the regional affiliates. As a professional institution, the main categories are provisional and full membership, with the expecta­ tion, as indicated, that members will progress from one to the other. Provisional members who have graduated from CIP-accredited university planning programmes intern for 2 years, maintain log books for review by a full

194

Planning Institutions: Canada/United States

member, and pass an oral exam for full membership. Without a recognised degree, a written exam or portfolio is required, and the internship period varies with educa­ tion: 4 years for provisional members with degrees related to planning; 6 years if the degree is not related; and 15 years with no degree. Since 2007, full members have been required to participate in continuous professional learn­ ing. By the late 1990s, a public associate member category was introduced to allow nonprofessionals to join the institution. Membership in APA and PN is acquired nationally, without restriction other than dues. For professionals, AICP holds written examinations semiannually. Only APA members are eligible to certify, and work experience is also required. For members with an accredited master’s degree, the required period is 2 years; with an accredited bachelor’s, 3 years; with a nonaccredited graduate degree in planning, 3 years; any other college degree, 4 years; and no college degree, 8 years. AICP membership must be maintained through continuing education. Planning institutions define what is expected of mem­ bers through formal statements, or codes. Contravention of the code can lead to cancellation of professional status, but there are other dimensions. As explained by Paul Farmer, executive director and CEO of APA and AICP, a code ‘elevates’ by setting value-laden standards. In 1994, CIP adopted a Statement of Values and a decade later revised its Code of Practice. The separation enabled CIP to communicate its underlying values and to define spe­ cific criteria for good practice. Values, nonenforceable, comprise eight points, including social and environmental responsibility. The code, which is enforceable, includes three areas of responsibility: to the public interest (4 points); to clients and employers (15 points); and to the profession (17 points). CIP has updated the language of the Statement of Values and Code of Practice and at the time of writing intends that affiliate adoption will lead to a consistent standard nationally. APA adopted a set of ethical principles in 1992. It does not include provisions for enforcement and is organised around three themes: the public interest (7 points); integ­ rity and proficiency (13 points); and, in a section for practising planners, continuous improvement of their own competence and that of others in the field. The AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct was adopted in 2005. Like the CIP Code of Practice, it addresses the three areas of responsibility attended to by CIP: the public interest (8 points), clients and employers (3 points), and the profession (10 points). However, here these are phrased as ‘principles to which we aspire’ rather than as the potential basis for procedures against a profes­ sional planner. A further section of the AICP Code, ‘Our rules of conduct’, sets out 25 lines that professional plan­ ners must not cross, and a third section, ‘Our code

procedures’, outlines the process for processing issues arising from the foregoing sections. In their treatment of the public interest, the two pro­ fessional codes reflect the utilitarian roots of the profession. Nevertheless, both institutions show they are moving away from this by including diversity issues in their professional codes. AICP prohibits unlawful discri­ mination (APA, 2009: Rule of Conduct 20), and CIP requires planners to respect the ‘‘diversity, needs, values and aspirations of the public’’ (CIP, 2008: Standard 1.1). PN shifts the social role of planning by advancing a Statement of Principles placing planning as a vehicle for social change, undermining the discrimination and inequalities of the status quo, and leading towards an equitable future.

Conclusions A growing body of literature has been addressing how professionals write their history and construct their iden­ tity. Planning institutions in Canada and the United States perform a wide range of functions, including certi­ fying and regulating professionals, influencing the development of planning knowledge through publications and the accreditation of planning education, promoting planning to government and in civil society, and provid­ ing services to members. In the United States, the APA provides a nonprofessional body for advancing planning. Although CIP introduced nonprofessional membership categories a few years ago, its membership consists over­ whelmingly of certified and provisional members. During its life span, CPAC provided an independent voice for the planning movement in Canada. PN is an independent focus for progressive planners though its presence in Canada and the United States is small in comparison to the mainstream organisations. See also: Architects; Civil Sector Institutions and Informal Settlements; Institutions that Represent Housing Professionals; Planning Institutions: China; Planning Institutions: Post-Socialist; Research Networks and Professional Institutions in Housing.

References American Planning Association (2009) AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. http://www.planning.org/ethics/ ethicscode.htm (accessed 21 July 2009). Canadian Institute of Planners (2008) Ethical Standards for the Planning Profession in Canada.http://cip-icu.ca/_CMS/files/ Ethical%20Standards.pdf (accessed 21 July 2009). Stein DL (1994) Thomas Adams, 1871–1940. Plan Canada Special Issue, July: 14–15.

Planning Institutions: Canada/United States

Further Reading American Planning Association (2009) Ethical Principles in Planning. http://www.planning.org/ethics/ethical principles.htm (accessed 21 July 2009). Armstrong AH (1959) Thomas Adams and the Commission on Conservation. Plan Canada 1(1): 14–32. Artibise A and Stelter GA (eds.) (1979) The Useable Urban Past: Planning and Politics in the Modern Canadian City. Toronto, ON: Macmillan. Birch EL (1980) Advancing the art and science of planning: Planners and their organizations 1909–1980. Journal of the American Planning Association 46(1): 22–49. Birch EL and Silver C (2009) One hundred years of city planning’s enduring and evolving connections. Journal of the American Planning Association 75(2): 113–122. Black RVN (1967) Planning and the Planning Profession: The Past Fifty Years. Washington, DC: AIP. Canadian Institute of Planners (2004) Statement of Values and Code of Practice. Ottawa, ON: CIP. Hendler S and Harrison H (2000) Theorizing Canadian planning: Women, gender and feminist perspectives. In: Miranne KB and Young AH (eds.) Gendering the City: Women, Boundaries and Visions of Urban Life, pp. 139–156. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.

195

Krueckeberg DA (1980) The story of the Planner’s Journal, 1915–1980. Journal of the American Planning Association 46(1): 5–21. Peterson JA (2003) The Birth of City Planning in the United States 1840– 1917. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Planners Network (2009) History. http://www.plannersnetwork.org/ about/history.html (accessed 2 September 2009). Rutherford P (ed.) (1974) Saving the Canadian City: The First Phase 1880–1920.Toronto, ON; Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press. Schaffer D (ed.) (1988) Two Centuries of American Planning. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Sies MC and Silver C (1996) Planning the Twentieth-Century American City. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Simpson M (1985) Thomas Adams and the Modern Planning Movement: Britain, Canada and the United States, 1900–1940. London; New York: Mansell Publishing Ltd. Smith (1979) John Arthur Roebuck: A Canadian influence on the development of planning thought in the early nineteenth century. Plan Canada 19(3/4): 200–210. Thabit W (1999) A History of Planners for Equal Opportunity. www.plannersnetwork.org/publications/pdfs/ A_History_of_PEO.pdf (accessed 2 September 2009). Wolfe JM (2003) A national urban policy for Canada? Prospects and challenges. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 12(1) (Supplement): 1–21.