Planning as Regulation

I came across this comment from architect Pip Cheshire:

I don't think planning should exist. Ever. Not anywhere. Not within the university. Not anywhere. I think we're all sort of past planning now. Planners were an offshoot of architecture, they slithered off to organise the great dream. It was a great 20th century idea but the world's too complicated for planning now. What planning tries to do is regulate human endeavour, human activity by sets of rules which fit most situations but not specifically any. I have a hunch that they should either transform into urban design or just fold their tents.

(Source: The Disappearing of Peggy Deamer, F. Walsh, 2007, Metro, 316: 84–94.)

Perhaps he is looking at planning in terms of a district plan / zoning / rules perspective. Strategic and community planning and other urban policy development may thus escape from his definition.

I must admit that the 'great dream' is an exciting idea for me. Ebenezer Howard, Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, industrial philanthropists all had interesting visions.

However, I do worry about all these rules. Often there seems to be no reasoning for their existence, they seem to serve to perpetuate the suburban landscape, by permitting the lowest common standard of single-house-with-yards-on-each-side development.

The rules in the district plan about height, yards, set backs, floor area ratio, height in relation to boundary are based on permitting this single style of building.

(Source: City of Auckland District Plan.)

This is far removed from the principles that A Pattern Language articulates. Sometimes I think it might be better if all these rules were gotten rid of, and instead everybody just built what they wanted, or if perhaps all buildings were subject to planning permission, and just had to show how they were contributing positively to the urban landscape.