Ming Qi; Lilei Gao

doi:10.70711/frim.v2i11.5575

Governance and Growth: A Case Study of Vancouvers Planning Framework

Ming Qi, Lilei Gao

Abstract

The effective operation of the Urban Development Framework allows Vancouver to have a strong city profile. There are efficient
managing measures and approaches such as administering the judicial framework, citizen engagement and reward exchange mechanisms for
formulating and executing the urban planning. It is a strong integration of two separate planning approaches: the British discretionary method
and the American regulatory approach. This essay primarily analyses the planning system of Vancouver and discusses how the two planning
styles are combined.

Keywords

Urban Planning; Vancouver Charter; Discretionary System; Regulatory Framework; Public Participation

Full Text:

PDF

Included Database

References

[1] Booth, P. (1995). Zoning or Discretionary Action: Certainty and Responsiveness in Implementing Planning Policy, Journal of planning

education and research, 14(2), pp.103112.

[2] Booth, P. (1999). From regulation to discretion: the evolution of development control in the British planning system 1909-1947. Planning perspectives, 14(3), pp.277289.

[3] Yu, L. (2011). Regulatory and Discretionary Planning and Way Forward of Planning System: Cases of the Netherlands and the UK,

Urban Planning International, 2011. 005(026), PP. 56-65

[4] SILVA, C. (2005). P. Newman and A. Thornley, Planning World Cities. Globalization and Urban Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2005) pp. Cities, 22(5), pp.396397.

[5] Claydon, J. (1998). Discretion in Development Control: A Study of How Discretion is Exercised in the Conduct of Development Control in England and Wales, Planning, practice & research, 13(1), pp.5362.

[6] Andreas, S. B., and Brian, W., (2020). Planning Through Zoning. [online] Rtpi.org.uk. Available at:

research/2020/september/planning-through-zoning/> (Accessed 17 January 2021).

[7] Kayden, J. (2004). Reconsidering Zoning: Expanding an American Land-Use Frontier, Zoning Practice, 1, 213.

[8] Munneke, H. (2005). Dynamics of the urban zoning structure: An empirical investigation of zoning change, Journal of urban economics, 58(3), pp.455473.

[9] Yokohari, M., Takeuchi, K., Watanabe, T., Yokota, S. (2000). Beyond greenbelts and zoning: A new planning concept for the environment of Asian mega-cities, Landscape and urban planning, 47(3), pp.159171.

[10] Ruming, K. (2012). Negotiating Within the Context of Planning Reform: Public and Private Reflections from New South Wales, Australia, International planning studies, 17(4), pp.397418.

[11] Biggar, J. and Siemiatycki, M. (2020). Tracing Discretion in Planning and Land-Use Outcomes: Perspectives from Toronto, Canada,

Journal of Planning Education and Research, pp.0739456X2090442.

[12] Cullingworth, J. Barry. (2017). Urban and Regional Planning in Canada. Abingdon: Routledge.

[13] Gordon, D. (2004). Book Review: The Vancouver Achievement: Urban Planning and Design, Journal of Planning Literature, 19(2),

pp.224-225.

[14] Vancouver Charter 1953, . Available at: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/vanch_00

[15] Punter, J. (2003). The Vancouver achievement: urban planning and design. Vancouver: UBC Press.

[16] Devine, P. (2009). Section 37: An Update on Lets Make a Deal Planning, Toronto: Fraser Milner Casgrain.

[17] Jeanne, M.W., and Yan, N. (2005). Planning in Canada: the Framework, Urban Planning Overseas, 2005. 02(002), PP.3-6

[18] Sorensen, H. (2015). Building suburbs, Toronto-style: land development regimes, institutions, critical junctures and path dependence.

Town planning review, 86(4), pp.411436.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.70711/frim.v2i11.5575

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.