Th1s artiCle analyzes the emergence of a '·new regionalism" and Situates th1s movement within the historical evolu­tion of reg1onal planning. Key charac­teristics mdude (1) a focus on specific territories and spat1al plannmg; (2) a respon~e ro the particular problems of rhe posrmodern metropolitan region; (3) a holistic perspective that mte­grates planning specialties as well as environmental, equity, and economic goals; ( 4) a renewed emphasis on phys1cal plannmg, urban des1gn, and sense of place; and ( 5) a more activist or normative stance on the part of planners. The implementation of new regional isr concepts is likely to come about not through top-down regional government, but through Incremental development of social capital, institu­tions, ad hoc partnerships, and frame­works of incentives and mandates be­tween existing levels of government.

Wheeler, AICP, IS a lecturer in the Depart­ment ofC1ty and Reg1onal Planning ar the Umversiry of California at Berkeley and a consultant 1n rhe areas of smart growth, urban des1gn, and sustainable develop­ment. He received Ph.D and M.C.P. de­grees from U.C. Berkeley and a B.A. from Dartmouth College.

journal of the American P/anmngAssociation, Vol. 68, No.3, Summer 2002. ©American Planmng Assoc1at1on, Chicago, IL

The New Regionalism Key Characteristics of an Emerging Movement

Stephen M. Wheeler

S ince ch e early 1990s, there has been a dramacic resurgence of interest in regional planning in North America, particularly at the metropolitan level. Many planning practitioners, academics, and members of rhe

general public have come to see regional strategies as essential in dealing with current problems related to growth management, environmental pro­tection, eq uiry, 1 and qualiry oflife. Recent movements for New Urbanism, smarr growth, livable communi ties, sustainable development, and improved equiry within metropolitan areas all have strong implications for regional planning and design. Politicians, planners, or activists have launched re­gional initiatives in areas such as Minneapolis- St. Paul, Portland (OR), Seat­de, the San Francisco Bay Area, New York, Salt Lake Ciry, Atlanta, Toronto, and Vancouver (Be) as well as the Stare of California. A tide of new Literature has appeared on the subjccr.2

Observers in both North America and the United Kingdom have noted the emergence of a "new regionalism," and sessions at Association of Colle­giate Schools of Planning conferences have sought to explore rhis subject. However, this new movement has yet to be defined or systematically ana­lyzed. Accordingly, this arricle seeks to outline key characteristics of a new re­gionalism and discuss irs implications for planning practice and pedagogy. The analysis presented here is based on a review of recent literature, contem­poraly regional planning initiatives, and historical writings on regionalism.

The term new regionalism is nor itself new. For many decades hisrorians, scholars ofliterature, political scientists, sociologists, and planners have used it occasionally in different contexts. For example, Universiry ofNorrh Carolina sociologists Howard W. Odum and Harry Estill Moore used the label as long ago as 1938 to refer to the then-current synthesis of cultural and political regionalism (Odum & Moore, 1938, p. 3). However, this term has come to the fore increasingly since the mid 1990s. Todd Swansn·om (1995) and Manuel Pastor (Pastor et al., 2000) used it to refer co a new focus on co­ordinated centtal-ciry and suburban economic development chat is geared to

APA]ournal • Summer 2002 • VoL 68, No.3 267

STCPHEN 1\1. \XIIIEELER

reducing disparities in income and tax bases. H. V. Sav­itch and Ronald K. Vogel (2000b, p. 198) likewise em­phasize reducing gaps in economic welfare between cen­tral cities and suburbs and enhancing the ability of metropol iran regions ro compete in rhe global economy. Ann Markusen (1995) has applied the term more gener­ally to "new lines of inquiry" (p. 323) established since the 1960s that explore un even regional development, deindustria.lization , and other economic dynamics. The nc'.vly formed California Center for Regional Leadership (200 1) tours new regionalism as a holistic planning ap­proach "based on the interconnectedness of economic, environmenral, and social systems" (p. 1) to be applied at various geographic scales. Similarly, in their essay, "Why Now Is the Time ro Rethink Regionalism," Alvin Rosen­baum and Marcy Merm el ( 1995) focus on new recogni­tions of interdependency within decentralizing urban landscapes, arguing that "the new regionalism is the recognition that the people of the world have been pulling apart bur also arc pulling rogether in new com­binations" (p. 31 ). In their recent book The Regional City, Peter Calrhorpe and William Fulton (200 I ) argue for a new synthesis of physical , social, and economic planning focusing on the merropolira.n regio n. Meanwhi le, Brit­ish scholars have employed the same term quire differ­ently ro refer to the establishment of new poli tical bod­ies such as the Scottish Parliamenr and rhe Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies (Thomas & Kimberley, 1995; Tomaney & Ward , 2000) and to the esrablishrnenr of Regional Development Agencies by the Blair govern­ment in the late 1990s (Nathan , 2000). These British agencies have been directed to develop a regional sus­tainabiliry agenda that mirrors the broad concerns of many current North American regional isrs.

Clearly there is much interest t hese days in redefin­ing regional planning in ways chat broaden its thematic focus and concenrrate on specific geographical regions. I argue here char these recent perspectives on regional­ism are re lated and rhar their commonalities shed light on current regional chal lenges-in particular the need co integrate physical planning, urban design, and equiry planning wirh the focus on regional economic geogra­phy that characterized regional planning during the sec­ond half of the 20th centLny.

Historical Background To understand the current wave of interest in re­

gional strategies, it is useful w look ar past eras of re­gionalism and how the philosophies and agendas of regional planners evolved during the 20th cenwry. The following section and Table 1 summarize some of the main eras and perspectives.

268 APAJournal • Summer 2002 • Vol. 68, No.3

Early 20th-Century Ecological Regionalism

Regional planning was first conceptualized as a field in the early 20th cemuty by thinkers such as Patrick Ged­des and Lewis Mumford (e.g., Geddes, 19 15/ 1949; Luc­carelli , 1995; Mumford, 1925, 1938; Sussman, 1976), who rook a holistic and normative approach co the srudy of large geograph ical areas (principally cities and their hinterlands). At about the same tjme, other groups such as the New York Regional Planning Association rook a more pragmatic look at rhe physical planning of metro­politan areas. Robert Fishman (2000) labels these rwo viewpoints t he regionalist and merropolitanist t radi­tions. Both reached their heights in the 1920s. The latter was the dominant establishment view locused on prag­matic metropo li tan improvements, and d1e former was a more idealistic perspective calling for urban decentral­ization. Tn Fishman's view, both forms of early regional­ism failed co achieve their objectives. Metropolitanisr planning su pporced disastrous urban renewal and pub­lic housing programs, while regionalist efforts to pro­more urban decentralization helped to create unforeseen problems wirh suburban sprawl.

Regional Science and Economic Geography As social scientists and economists increasing!)' in­

fluenced planning after World War II , the regional plan­ning agenda shifted away from questions of urban form and physical planning coward concerns with regional economic geography. Walter fsard (1975) and others founded the discipline of1·egional.-cience in the late 1940s and used quantitative tools ro explore economic aspects of regional development. In their classic volume l~egional Det1elopmentand Planning,John Friedmann and \Xiilliam Alonso (1964) referred to the region as an "economic Landscape" (p. 1). Friedmann wrote that regional plan­ning was concerned mainly with "problems of resources and econom ic development" (p. 497).

Marxist regionalism emerged in rhe 1970s with the writings of David Harvey, Manuel Castells, and others, adding a critique of power and social dynamics to analy­ses of regional econom ic development (e.g., Castells, 1977, 1983; Harvey, 1973). Regional environmental agencies and initiatives also came on the scene in the 1960s and 1970s, and in the United Stares, metropolitan councils of government were set up to provide at lease a minimum of regional coo rdination. Political scienrisrs continued a long debate on the best institutional ar­rangemenrs for metropolitan governance (e.g., Barlow, 199 1; Cou lter, 1967; Danielson & Doig, 1982; Jones, 1942; Savirch & Vogel, 1996; Self, 1982; Wood, 196 1). In the more conservative 1980s, regional planning in NorTh America and Ell rope suflered from official disinrcresr. An

TABLE 1. Historical eras of regional planning.

Era

Ecological regionalism (early 20th century)

Reg1onal sc1ence (late 1940s to present)

Nee-Marxist regional econom1c geography (late 1960s to present)

Public choice regionalism ( 1960s to present; most dominant 1n the 1980s)

New regionalism

Key figures

Geddes, Howard, Mumford, Mac Kaye

lsard, Alonzo, Friedmann

Harvey, Casrells, Massey, Sassen

Tiebour, Ostrom, Gordon, Richardson

Calthorpe, Rusk, Downs, Yaro, Hiss, Orfield, Katz, Pastor

ideology of public choice predominated, ra cionalizing the fragmentation of political authority within metropoli­tan regions on grounds of providing individuals with a choice of rax and se1vice levels in different jurisdictions.

Recent Regionally Oriented Movements In the early 1990s, concern about suburban sprawl,

rraffic congestion, central city/ suburban inequities, en­vironmental degradation, and the steri lity and homo­geneity of the built landscape blossomed into a range of new planning movements, all of which had profound re­gional planning i m pi ications.3 A new consensus around a revised set of physical planning principles ar regional, neighborhood, and sire scales emerged at this rime. Most strongly expressed by the Congress for the New Urban­ism (CNU), which convened for the first t ime in Octo­ber 1993, this new physical planning agenda influenced movements for livable communities, smarr growth, and sustainable developmem. In 1996, CNU members pro­duced the Charter of the New Urbanism, which em pha­sized the need to coordinate urban design changes ar dif­ferem scales, beginning with that of the metropolitan region (Congress for the New Urbanism, 2000). Begin­ning in the early 1990s, the mosr regio nally orienred of rhe CNU's founders, Peter Calthorpe, consul ted exten­sively within metropolitan regions such as Portland, San Diego, Salt Lake City, and rh e San Francisco Bay Area, and published two major works on regional physical

THE NEW REGIONALISM

Characteristics

Concerned with problems of the overcrowded 19th-century industrial city. Tried to balance city and countryside. Relatively holistic, normative, and place-oriented approach.

Emphasized regional economic development, quantitative analysis , and social science methods.

Developed analysis of power and social movements within the region.

Ana lyzed region in terms of a free-market version of neo­classical economics.

Concerned with environment and equity as well as economic development. Focused on specific regions and the problems of postmodern metropolitan landscapes. Often relatively place-oriented ; often action-oriented and normative .

planning (Calthorpe, 1993; Cal rhorpc & Fulton, 200 1). The focus of many regionalist efforts at this time

turned ro managing metropolitan growth. The "quiet revoluti o n" of growth management initiatives, which had begun in the L970s, produced second- and third­generation policy frameworks in stares such as O regon , New Jersey, Florida, and Vermont (Porter, 1992). By rhe mid L990s, concern about growth managemem had grown into a national movement, often using the banner of" smart growth." Such growth management efforts in­evitably raised questions of regional planning, since in rhe absence of regional coordination, initiatives by local jurisdictions could easi ly be undercllt by neighboring communi ties (Daniels, L999; Downs, 1994). The L991 fedcral1ntermodal Su rface Transportation Effi ciency Act (LSTEA; 199 J) and irs 1998 successor, the Transpor­tation Equity Act for the 21 sr Century (TEA-2 1; J 998), a lso helped cataly'l.e more coordinated regional planni ng by giving metropolitan planning organizations in­creased flexibi lity in funding transi t-supportive urban design and land use planning.

"Livable communities" became another planning buzz word throughout North America in the 1990s. Al­though often focused o n small-scale urban design im­provements, livability ini tiatives depend on regional action ro s trengthen urban centers and change trans­portation priorities (Lennard er al. , 1997). "Sustainable developmenr" also became a popular planning goal ar

APAJournal • Summer 2002 • Vol. 68, No. 3 269

STEPHEN M. WHEELER

this time, and was widely considered to include regional efforts co limit sprawl, creare compact communities, re­vitalize existing urban centers, produce more equitable distribution of resources, preserve natural ecosystems, and reduce resource use, pollution, and aucomobi.le use (Bearley& Manning, 1997; Wheeler, 2000).

A parallel movement that gathered steam in rhe 1990s called for improved eq uiry within merropoliran regions. Aurhors such as Rusk (1993), Orfield (1997), and powell (2000) advocared new policies co reduce in­come and resource disparities between suburbs and cen­tral cities. This concern was shared by scholars such as Altshuler era!. (1 999) , Greenstein and Wicwel (2000), Pas tor et al. (2000), and Savitch and Vogel (2000a). Re­gional rax sharing, as practiced to a partial extent in rhe Minneapolis-Sr. Paul region since 1975, was one com­monly suggested remedy for such disparities; another was Rusk's proposal that municipal boundaries be ex­tended co include suburbs, which would equalize tax resources across large geographical areas. Meanwhile, en­vironmental justice advocates such as Bullard (1990, 2000) documented the inequitable distribution of lo­cally unwanred land uses wirhin merropoliran regions.

Many researchers at rhis rime stressed the economic interdependence of suburbs and central cities (e.g., Lede­bur & Barnes, 1993; Savirch, 1993), as well as the impor­tance of"citi.states" in the new global economy (Peirce, 1993). Following decades of disappointing attempts to

develop comprehensive regional institutions, political scientists catalogued a range of flexible regional gover­nance strategies that could rake rhe place of large, cop­down regional in sri rutions, which were nor seen as po­litically feasible in most places (Altshuler er al. , 1999; Barlow, 1991; Dodge, 1996; Savirch & Vogel, 2000b; Sharpe, 1995; Wannop, 1995; Warren et al. , 1990).

These new contributions to regionalism, often com­ing from ourside academia, caused much soul searching among regional scientists and mhers grounded in pre­vious versions of regionalism. A debate arose within re­gional science about the extent to which irs methods and orientation were still relevant (e.g., Dear, 1995; lsserman, 1993; Markusen, 1995). The general conclusion was that much remains to be done ro respond " to the demand for political relevance and contributions to the quality of re­gional life that have continually been pressed since the 1960s" (Markusen, 1995, p. 320).

Characteristics of the New Regionalism

Clearly, the regionally oriented planning move­ments of the past decade represent a variety of view­points, and they face formidable insrirutional and polit-

270 APA)oumal • Summer 2002 • Vol. 68, No.3

ical obstacles if chey are co have practical effect. However, many recent regional initiatives share common charac­teristics that are likely co constitute the outlines of a new conception of regional planning. In contrast ro much regionalism during the second half of rhe 20th centUJy, the new approach

• focuses on specific rerrirories and spatial planning; • tries to address problems created by rhe growth

and fragmentation of posrmodern metropolitan reg10ns;

• takes a more holistic approacl1 ro planning that often integrates planning specialties such as transportation and land use as well as environ­mental , economic, and equity goals;

• emphasizes physical planning, urban design , and sense of place as well as social and economic planning; and

• often adopts a normative or activist seance.

These key elements of the new regionalism are described in more detail below.

Key Elements A Focus on Specific Territories and Spatial Planning.

For Patrick Geddes and most other regionalists in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the "region" was the city and irs surrounding terrain , and urbanized areas within this region were relatively compact, monocenrric, and clearly defined. For postwar regional theoris ts such as William Isard, William Alonso, and John Friedmann, the region often became a much larger, less cl early defined economic rerrir01y. Some geographers have argued rhar the dimension of "space" itself disappeared from mid-20th-century regional debates, and authors such as Lefebvre (1974) and Soja (1989) have argued for its re­inclusion. In 1979, Friedmann and Clyde Weaver stated their belief that the next wave of regional planning would have co emphasize " territory" as opposed ro "function" (Friedmann & Weaver, 1979). This revival of spatial focus and attention to place within the region does seem to be happening. Metropolitan areas and other specific geographical regions such as the Sierra Ne­vada moun rain range, the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Chesa­peake Bay, the Connecticut River Valley, the New Jersey Pinelands, and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area have received renewed attention in region­alist literature, professional planning, and advocacy movements (Richmond, 2000). Regional growth man­agement planning in the Portland metropolitan region is particularly well known; parallel efforts (often aided by state government) have been undertaken with vary­ing degrees of success in other metropolitan regions such as Salt Lake City, Seattle, Vancouver, Minneapolis,

San Diego, Atlanta, and Somh Florida. Although they are certainly nor found in all merropoliran regions, the rise of such initiatives-allied with movements such as smarr growth- helps bring regional planning back co the spatial focus common to both merropoliranists and re­gionalists 80 years ago.

A Response to the Pt·oblems ofPostmodern Metropol­itan Regions. The posrmodern metropolitan region is a vastly larger, more complex, and differently strucrured place than urban areas of the early 1900s (Dear, 2000; Ell in , 1996; Kling et al., 1991 ).lt is enormous in physical extent, increasingly polycentric, fragmented politically, and often highly diverse demographically- a veritable mosaic in terms of both physical form and social struc­rure. Terms such as "edge city,'' "subu rban clusters," "ex­urban sprawl," and "collage city" have come into exis­tence co explain the new landscape patterns (Garreau, 1991; Moudon & Hess, 2000; Rowe & Coerrer, 1978).

To rake one exa mple, Figure 1 shows that rhe To­ronto metropolitan region- referred co in recenr years as the "Greater Toronto Area"-has expanded about three times as much in the past 50 years as in irs first 160. As in many metropolitan regions, the strongly mo nocenrric, early-20th-century urban landscape ar the core has been transformed inro a much larger, polynucleared men·o­politan region with edge cities containing large concen­n·ations of offices and retail stores. O ne suburb a lone (Mississauga) contains more than 600,000 residems. On a neighborhood scale, the looping streets and large-scale, homogenous land uses of the newer suburbs represent a different urban pattern than can be found in the older, gridded central area. The politics ofr.he outer belt is dif­ferent, roo, form ing the main base of support in the mid­to- late 1990s for conservative Ontario premier Mike Harris (one of whose first acts in office was co dissolve the old City ofToronto, with irs p rogressive electoral base, and amalgamate it with close-in suburbs). Now the regi on's urban growth is spread ing south toward neigh­boring cities and th reatens ro fom1 a conrinuous sprawl of development around the sourhwestern end of Lake Ontario. One local commentatOr has described rhe cur­rent metropolitan region as "Vienna surrounded by Phoenix" Quri Pill, quoted in Cervero, 1998, p. 89).

jurisdictional fragmentation has made the post­modern metropo lis far less governable than metropoli­tan regions 50 years ago, so that s imple regional govern­ment m ode ls are .less feasible. Consequently, rhe new regionalism requires a more soph isticated understand­ing of a range of governance oprions, as well as careful analysis of social movcmenrs and the development of so­cial capital within the region (e.g., see Foster, 2000). A new undersranding of differences between o lder, inner-

THE NEW REGIONALISM

rin g suburbs and newer, outer-ring su bu rbs has also emerged, leading to the possibility of poli tical coalitions between center citi es and older sub urbs facing si milar problems of maintaining tax base and services (Orfie ld , 1997).

Because of the dispersed nature of the postmodern regional landscape, the currcm metropolitan physical planning agenda is 180 degrees from the agenda of re­gional ists a cen ru1y ago. Reurbanization , nor deconcen­rration, is a main goal. If, as Sir Peter Hall (1998) main­rains, 20th-century planning "essentially represents a reaction to the evils of the nineteenth-century city" (p. 7), then 21sr-centllly planning may be organized around attempts co deal with rhe sprawl, traffic, environmental damage, inequi t ies, and placelessness of 20th-century modern and postmodern regional landscapes.

A Holistic Approach that Integrates Planning Speci~l­ties as well as Environ menta~ Eqttity, and Economic Goals. The fOcus on economic development char do minated re­gionalism for most of the posr-World War I I period has shifted fundamentally, even within regional science, as planners seck co balance environmental, equity, and liv­ability concerns with economic o bjectives. Economic growth per se has in fact b eco me suspect in some re­gions, since it can bring on a population boom, drive up housing prices, generate excessive automobile traffic, ex­

acerbate jobs/ housing imbalances, and lead to many other quality-of-life problems. California's Silicon Val­Icy is one of the most extreme recent examples of this sir­uarion - a worldwid e model of regional econom ic devel­opmenr char nevertheless suffers from poverty, a skewed distribution of wealth, unaffordable ho using, excessive traffic, dilapidated public spaces, and environmental d egradation.

Environmental and equi ty goals have come co rhe fore. The "3 Es" of sustainable development (envi ron­ment, equity, and economy) are the classic expression of this new balan ce (Campbell, 1996). They have been ex­plicitly endorsed bycirizen-led regional planning efforts such as the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Develop­ment and the Regional Plan Association of New York and New Jersey, whose 1996 Region at Risk is probably the most fully developed example of 1990s citizen-led met­ropolitan regional planning (Bay Area Alliance, 2000; Yaro & Hiss, 1996). This new imegrario n of environ­mental, equi ty, and economic themes in such planning efforts revives co some extent the ho listic perspective of early-20rh-cenrury regionalists such as Geddes, Mum­ford , and Ebenezer Howard.

The agenda of many regional agencies has also changed in recemyears. In t he 1950sand 1960s, rhe pre­mier example of regional government in North America

APAJvurnal • Summer 2002 • Vol. 68, No.3 271

STEPHEN M. WHEELER

Greater Toronto Area

LEGEND

Developed Areas

• 1797-1870

[]]]] 1870- 1920

mil 1920- 1950

~ 1950- 1970

~ 1970-2000

Lake Ontario

0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles --=-=­SCALE

FIGURE 1. Toronto: A rapidly changing metropolitan region.

272 APAJournal • Summer 2002 • Vol. 68, No.3

(fJ N

was Metro Toronto, which, under long-rime chai r Fred­crick Gardiner, was referred to byToronro wags as more a construction agency than a regional governmenr. Effi­cient provision of infrastructure and services, as well as coordination of regional economic development, was a prime motivation behind regional governance in loca­tions such as Jndianapolis, Nashville, Louisville, Jack­sonville, and Minneapolis. Efficiency is still a key con­cern in many places. However, it is no longer quire so central a planning value as before, since many basic ser­vice and infrastructure needs have been mer within postindustrial society, and key fun ctions such as trans­portation planning are now handled relatively effectively by metropolitan planning organizations. l n contrast, the North American exemplar of 1990s regional planning was Portland's Metro Council , best known for its growth management agenda. Even in Toronro times bad changed. Metro To ronco produced a 1994 regional plan entitled "The Liveable Metropolis" (Metro Toromo, 199-t) that emphasizes planning for grcen\\'ays and revi­talization of traditional mainstreet corridors. Another Toronto agency led by former mayor David Crombie produced an even more visionaty plan for bioregionally oriented watershed restoration (Crombi e, 1992).

In academia, a more holistic range of research meth­ods is being applied to the study of regions. The short­comings of quantitative methods have become apparenc ro many scholars in recenc years. These deficiencies in­clude their inability to take inro account phenomena such as quality of life, the weakness of many of their data sources, their tendency to rely on camouflaged assump­tions, and their impenetrabili ty ro the average citizen. Much recent regional research has made more use of qualitative methods, such as the comparative case S[Udy, which allows exploration of the often unquanrifiable variables affecting the evolution of urban regions (e.g., Roth blatt & Sancron, 1998; Savirch & Vogel, 1996; Wan­nop, 1995). Orher qualitative methods shed light on how people perceive regions and places within them; these in­clude the cognitive mapping, visual preference, behav­ior observation , and su rvey cools pioneered by Kevin Lynch, Donald Appleyard, and others in the environ­mental design field (e.g., Lynch , 1976; Nasar, 1998).

Phenomenology, rooted in simple observation, is perhaps the most extreme qualitative method and has gained adherents in the past decade (e.g., Seamon, 1993). University of Toronto Professor Edward Relpb, for ex­ample, follows an approach char he calls simply "watch­ing," and says" I prefer to start with the rorality of what I see, and ro try to puzzle our its appearance by following several directions more or less at once" (Relph, 1987, p. 5). Although this strategy may be scorned by social sci­enrists, it closely marches Geddes' method of climbing

THE NEW REGIONALISM

the stai rs to the top of the Outlook Tower in Edinbu rgh to gaze upon the region. (Geddes' methods in fact repre­senred an inrerescing blend of the qualitative and quan­titative, combining first-hand, engaged observation with systematic compilation of data about the region.)

A New Emphasis on Physical Planning, Urban Design, and Sense ofPlace. As Neuman (2000) observes, "We are witnessing a rebirth of physical design, both in practice and the academy" (p. l 15). Regional-scale design in par­ticular, largely dormant in the United States since the early decades of the 20th cemllly, has been resurrected. New Urbanism, smart growth, and other physical plan­ning movements are arising out of a new understanding on the part of planners and citizens that "design mat­ters,'' and that good urban design muse be in regrated across regional, subregional, neighborhood , and site scales. In particular, many growth management advo­cates have realized that it is not enough simply to estab­lish urban growth boundaries or other growth controls, bur that pol icies and designs muse be adopted to bring about desired forms of development inside these bound­aries. Many New Urbanist sympathizers have also real­ized that isolated New Urbanist projects arc not enough. What is required are strategies to produce a more coher­cnrovcrall regional fabric for both metropolitan regions and exurban areas. Meanwhile, academic researchers such as Sourhworrb and Owens ( 1993) and Moudon and Hess (2000) have charred the physical patterns of met­ropo li tan growth in more detailed ways than previous research.

A. More Activist or Normative Stance. While the de­tached stance of regional science I i mi ted any normative statements or actions on the part of planners, current re­gionalist rheroric often resembles the passionate tone employed by early-20th-century pioneers such as Ged­des and Mumford. The detachment of regional science is epiromized by lsard 's 1975 comment:

A regional scientist is not an activist planner .... The typical regional scientist wanrs co surround him­self with research assistanrs and a com purer for a long rime in o rder to collect all the relevant infor­mation about the problem, analyze it carefully, try our some hypotheses, and finally reach some con­clusions and perhaps recommendations. His find­ings are th en passed on ro key d ecisionmakcrs. (Isard, 1975, p. 2)

In contrast, movements such as New Urbanism are primarily normative and have produced a number of manifestos containing principles of good urban andre­gional development. Writers such as Kunsrler (1993, 1996), Calthorpe (1993), Duany eta!. (2000), and Cal-

APAjournal • Summer 2002 • Vol. 68. No.3 273

STEP! l EN M. WHEELER

thorpe and rulron (200 1) strongly critique rhe landscape of sprawl. Authors such as Orfield ( 1997), Rusk ( 1993, J 999), and Kemmis ( 1995) also employ strongly goal­o riented language in pursuit of eq uity and civic cngage­mem and actively promote regional agendas •..vhile serv­ing as public officials and consultants. Although academic regionali sts remain reluctru1r ro engage in nor­mative discou rsc, rno re activist platforms can freq uently be found in the works of those coming from land scape arch itecture or urban design backgrounds, who must look most closely at the physical pa([erns of urbaniza­tion (e.g., Hough , 1990; Kelbaugh, 1997; Lynch, l98 1).

These, then, are some key characteristics of the new regionalism. To a large extent, this emerging movemenr can be seen as a reaction against the previous generation of regionalism , wh ich emphasized abstract, aspatial analysis, the goal of regional economic d evelopm en t, quantitative social science methods, and a stance of sci­entific detachment. To som e extenr ir is a lso a reaction against the ills of the postmodern landscape, with its amorphous, placeless sprawl of suburbs often prod uced by the culture and corporations of the global economy. In contrast, rhe new regionalism is more foc11sed o n spe­cific geographical regions and place making, more ho lis­tic in irs analysis, more inclusive in irs methods, more willing ro acknowledge the importru1Ce of regional de­sign and physical plru1n ing, more overtly normative in irs goals, and more interested in actively add ressing cu r­rent regional problems. ln shon, it represents a move­ment to develop a set of regio nal planning cools and strategies appropriate to 2 1st-cen tury problems.

Implications for the Planning Profession

The new regionalism has arisen because of anum­ber of very real environmenral a11d social problems asso­ciated ~rith past regional developmenr. It is 10 years old at most and s till in its early stages. T he challenge for the planning profession, then, is to help this movement to develop and address regional issues mosr successfully. Meeting this challenge will req ui re leadersh ip andre­search in a number of areas- particularly regional trans­portation, lru1d use, design, housing, environmental pro­tection, and equity planning. Jr will also require work o n regional plan ning processes and institutions, including Aexiblc governance options, incemive structures ro bring about bertcr physical plru1ning and improve equity, steps to nurture social capi tal within the region, and methods of s upporting regional social movements around growth, environ mental, or equity issues.

To look in more derail at implications for rhe pla.I1-ning profession, I return ro rhe fi ve key characteristics of

274 APAjournal • Summer 2002 • Vol. 68, No. 3

the new regionalis m discussed in the previous sectio n . Reincorporating a focus on specific pletces and landscapes will require, to some extent, a shift in the way pla11ners think about cities and regions. Real space- seen through direct observation ru1d understood through experience and concexcual study-must rake precedence over rhe ab­straction of space conrained within com purer m odels, which are after all only tools to help pl ann ers under­stand rhe real world. Following Geddes' lead, practi­tioners, students, ru1d plann ing faculty need to get away from the computer and our of the classroom to directly observe and experience the region . They must learn to evaluate develo pment within a region according ro a rru1ge of criteria. Doing so might help some academics unders tand the dismay that many citizens fee l about submban environments created during the past 50 years, and the mo tivations behind movements such as New Ur­banism , smart grO\vth , livable co mmunities, and sus­tainable developmenr.

At the same rime, undemanding the postmodem regional landscape Mll require systematic research in co its physical patterns, irs sociology, and irs po litical ru1d econo mic s trucrure. This research will Lrtili ze all available methods, including case scud ies and direct observatio n. f n partic­ular, it will require understanding how global econ omic power structures shape the physical partems, cul t ure, and social a11d political structures of regions. As the dy­nrunics of rhe postmodern region arc better u nderscood , regional planners will be better equipped co take action ro reduce jurisdictional fragmentation, build social cap­ital, combat placelessness, nurwre social jus rice, enhance environmental quali ty, a11d improve quality oflife.

Adopting a more holistic approach to regional planning means

• integrating trad itional disciplines of planning '~ri th in rhe regio n;

• integrating differenr scales of planni ng- natio naJ, stare, regional, local , neighborhood, and s ite-in order to achieve regional goa ls; and

• purring current efforrs within the conrext of regional hiscory and evolution.

To rake the first of rhese points, iris now widely agreed , for exa.JTiple, rhar regional agencies muse incegrare land use, air quality, and transportation planning, through coordi nated action between agencies if nm a single re­gional plan by one agency. Planning for housing, ed uca­tion , and social se1vices is closely related to rhese con­cerns as weU. In the past, the lack of such linkage has helped fuel su bu rban sprawl, leadi ng to a host of inter­related problems such as traffic congestion , air poll u­tion, jobs/ho using imbalances, and cen tra l city/ subu r­ban disparities. Given rhc past tendency of planners ro

focus narrowly on single issues, the goals and programs of current regional plan ning agencies should be reviewed ro ensure rhar they are adequately responding co the whole range of interlinked regional needs. New inrer­agency mitiarives can perhaps help bring abom a more holistic regional planning approach.

To think holistically, planners also need co inregrare different scales of planning co meet regional needs. New Urbanists in particular have recognized that many re­gional problems can only be solved by coordinating planning and urban design at regional, municipal, neighborhood, and site scales. The Charter for the New Urbanism makes this linkage explicit (CNU, 2000; see also Calrhorpe & Fulton, 2001; Urban Ecology, 1996). Political scienrists have also frequently written about how the region exists in dynamic relationship wirh higher and lower levels of government and have pointed our how important it is for different levels of govern­ment co adopt murually supportive policy frameworks.

Thinking holistically also means emphasizing the temporal evolution of regional developmenr, ro root cur­rent action in knowledge of how regions came co be the way they are roday and how they can become better places in the long term. New Urbanists have done this extensively by studying past community design and urban form (nor for nothing has New Urbanism been called "neo-tradtrionalism"). Bur derailed study of the evolution of regional insrirurions, politics, and society is important as well (e.g., see Barlow, 199 L; Castells, L996, 1997, 1998; Friedmann & Weaver, 1979; Hall, 1988; Sharpe, 1995; Wannop, 1995).

Incorpora.ting a new emphasis on physical planning and urban design may require changes in t11e staffing of agen­cies and the training of planners, for exan1ple by empha­sizing familiarity with urban design techniques. In the overall balance of planning specialties, this change re­quires a reintegration of regional physical planning and urban design with economic and social planning. Envi­ronmental design research methods muse rake their place alongside regressions and policy analyses. To a con­siderable extent, chis reintegration is already happening within the smart growth and sustainable development movements.

Last, taking a more active role in addressing regional prob­lems challenges planners ro connect knowledge about the region with mechanisms to change ir. Movements such as smarr growth and New Urbanism virtually de­mand regional advocacy planning in wh ich planners chink strategically about how co bring about the condi­tions for constructive regional change. Mechanisms co do this will include expanded public processes, more transparent regional institutions, greater consideration of alternative regional investments, adoption of clear re-

THE NEW REGIONALiSM

gional policy goals and performance indicators, and sup­parr of regional social movements. University planning departments can rake sreps to put students and faculty on the forefront of addressing regional problems. This involvement can occur through studio projects, univer­sity-sponsored charerres, conferences, directed research, or individual leadership (see. for example, Kelbaugh, 1997). Such engagement would have been applauded by many early regionalists and can best help to prepare stu­dents for constructive roles in the new regionalism.

Implementing the New Regionalism The question of how to implement new regionalist

ideas is a difficult one. Half a century ago, planners had greater hope for regional government than exists today. Clearly, new regional planning agencies with broad man­dares are not likely to be created in most places, and those that are formed may nor be effective in solvi ng many regional problems (Savitch & Vogel, 2000b). Fun­damental political difficulties work against the creation and success of new regional governments, including strong opposition from local, state, and provincial gov­ernments unwilling ro give up power, rhe hostility of suburban voters unable to see how their interests are tied to the well-being of central cities, and rhe reluctance of central-ciry constituencies co see their progressive vot­ing blocs diluted (Rorhblatt, 1994; Self, 1982). [n the U.S., rhe established political notions of decentralization and federalism also work against the creation of new re­gional institutions (Lim, 1983).

However, a number of other s trategies are possible. As Savirch and Vogel ( 1996) point out, coordination of many regional or subregional goals can occur without a centralized regional government structure. Ad hoc work­ing groups oflocal governments, operating agreements between municipalities or local agencies, joint powers authorities, and sophisticated sets of incentives and mandates between existing levels of government can help coordinate public-sector action on issues ranging from ca:< sharing co growth management co improve­ment of education and other services.

Local government action on items of regional con­cern can often be leveraged by state government or ex­isting single-purpose regional agencies. States, for ex­ample, might provide incentive grants co localities that make progress coward increasing their housing produc­tion to meet regional goals for fair-share affordable housing, as is currently happening in California. O r they might provide planning grants and technical assistance for local growth management efforts, as is being done in Oregon. State or regional agencies might condition in­frastructure funding on local adoption of smart growth

APAJournal • Summer 2002 • Vol. 68, No.3 275

STEPHEN M. WHEELER

planning frameworks or ocher local actions. Or th ey might make urban territories designated within these plans "priority funding areas" as happens under Mary­land's smart growth framework first implemented in 1998.ln these ways, state or provincial governments and our existing weak regional institutions can stimulate local progress toward addressing regional problems.

Overall, a long-term, srracegic approach is needed to

create a climate in which 2lst-centui)' regional needs can be met. Regional in stitutions muse be slowly and incre­mentally strengthened, as has happened in Porrland (Ab­bott, 200 1). Social capital mus t be built and social move­ments nurtured char can support regional policymaking. Regional power brokers and business leaders must come w sec that they share com man ground with rhe growing mass of nongovcrnmenral organizations rl1at make up much of civil society, particularly environmental groups concerned with growtl1 managemenr and nonprofit de­vel.opers bui lding affordable housing. Citizens and local governments must come to understand regional prob­lems and see their imerdependency wi rh others through­out the region. Since local governments are so strong in the United States, financial incentives musr be developed for them co think regionally, as a part of interlocking policy frameworks at different levels of government.

Obviously, new regionalists have many challenging tasks before them. Bur tbe vigor and excitement of ef­forts during the past 10 years are considerable. For the first time since tl1e 1960s there is hope that significant progress in regional planning is possible.

NOTES

I . "Equiry" in rh is context often concems disparities in rax bases, services, and economic welf .. a.re between cenrral cit­ies and suburbs. Other regional equity issues include the distribution of affordable housing, public expendirures on transporrarion and other infrastructure (which may benefi r some jurisdictions or groups of residents more than ochers), and rhe disproporrionate exposure of! ower­income groups and/ or communities of color to pollution, toxic substances, and locally unwanted land uses.

2. See, for example, Altshuler ( 1999), Barlow (1991), Cal­thorpe ( l993), Cal t horpe and Fulcon (200 I), Cisneros ( 1995), Dodge (1996), Downs (1994), Duany et al. (2000), Greenstein and Wiewel (2000), Katz (2000), Kelbaugh (1997), Neuman (2000), Orfield (1997), Pasror et al. (2000), Peirce (1993), Rochblacc and Sancton ( L998), Rusk ( 1993, 1999), Savitch and Vogel ( 1996, 2000a, 2000b), Sharpe (1995), Wannop (1995), and Yaro ru1d Hiss (1996). Weitz and Seltzer (1998) provide a litcrarure review as of 1996.

3. This new, often environmcmallyorienccd agenda was an­ticipated to some excenr by John Friedmru1n and Clyde Weaver in rhei r 1979 book Territmy and Function: The J!.tJo­lttti01l of Regional Planning, although their predictions

276 APAjournal • Summer 2002 • Vol. 68, No.3

would have co wait more than a decade to be at least some­what fulfi lled.

REFERENCES

Abbott, C. (200 1). Greater Portland: U1-ban life and landscape in the Pacific Northwest. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.

Altshuler, A., Morrill, W. , Wolman, H., & Mitchell, F. (Eds.). (1999). GotJernance and opportunity in metropolitan Amer·ica. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ba rlow, l. M. ( 199 I). Metropolitan government. New York: Rourledge.

Bay Area Alliance for Susc:ainable Developmen r. (2000). Draft compact for a sustainable Bay Area. San Francisco: Author.

Beatie}' · T., & M<lJlning, K. ( 1997). The ecology of place: Planning forenviromnent; econon:y, and co1m1mnity. Washingron, DC: Island Press.

Bullard, R. D. (1990). Dumpingi1r Dixie: Race, class, and e1wiron­mental quality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bulla rd , R. D., johnson, G. S., & Torres, A. 0. (Eds.). (2000). Sp1·atlJl city: Race, politics, and planning in Atlanta. Washing­ron, DC: Island Press.

California Center for Regional Leadership. (2001). The new regionalism. Retrieved from <: h ttp://www.calregions.org/ newrcgionlsm.h tml'.

Calrhorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, com­nmnity, and the American dr·eam . Pt-inceron, N]: Princeron Architectural Press.

Calrhorpe, P.,& Fulton, W. (200 1). Theregio11alcity: Planningfm· the end ofsprmvl. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Campbell , S. ( 1996). Green cities, growing ci ties, jusr cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable de­velopment. journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296-312.

Cas tells, J\11. ( 1977). The urban question: A Marxist approach. Lon­don: Edwa1·d Arnold.

Cas tells, M. ( 1983 ). The city a,nd the grassroots: A cross-mltural the· 01y of urban social movements. Berkeley: University of Cali­fornia Press.

Cas tells, M. (1996). The information age, Vol. 1: The rise ofthe net­rt101'ksociety. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Casrells, M. ( .1997). The hrforma.tioll age, Vol. 2: The poll'er of iden­tity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Cas tells, M. ( 1998). Tbe information age, \lol. 3: End ofnullennium. Cambt-idge, MA: Blackwell.

Cisneros. H. G. (1995). Regionaltsm: The new geography of oppor· tunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Deparr:menrofHousingand Urban Dcvelopmenr.

Congress for rhe New Urbanism. (2000). Charter of the r1ew m·· banism. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Coulter, P. B. (Ed.). (1967). Politics of metropolitan areas: Selected 1·eaclings. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

Crombie, D. (1992). Regeneration: Toronto's waterfrontandthe sus­tainable city. Toronto, ON: Royal Commission on che Fu­ture of t he Toronto Waterfront.

Da nicls, T. ( 1999). When city and counhy collide: M anaginggrowth in themetropolitanfi·illge. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Da111elson, M. N .. & Ooig,J. W. (1982). New )'orll: Tbr: politics of ttrb.m rc>gional der,efopment. Berkeley: University of Cali for­ma Press.

Dear, M. J. ( 1995). Remveming regional science. Intemational Rt'!Jonal Sctence i{el'ii'IL', 17(3), 355 360.

Dear, M.j. (2000). Tbe postmodemurban condttion. Malden, Mt\: Blackwell.

Dodge, W. R. ( 1996). Regt01~<tl excellence: GrJ/Iernmg togctbe,· to compete globally and flourish local/)'. Washington, DC: Na­tional League of Cines.

Downs, A. ( 1994 ). Nell' t•isLOns for metropolitan America. Wash­mgron, DC: Brookmgs Institution & Cambridge, MA: Lincoln I nsriturc of Land Policy.

Duany. A. Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburb,m na­tion· The me ofspraud and the dec/me of the American dm:zm. New York: North Poinr Press.

Ell in, N. (1996). Post modern t{rbanism. New York: Princeton Ar­chitecwral Press.

Fishman, R. (2000). The death and life of Americ::tn regional planning. In B. Katz (Ed.), Reflect tons on regronalism (pp. 107-123). Washington, DC: Brookings Institunon Press.

roster, K. A. (2000). Regional capital. In R. Greenstein & W. \i;'icwcl (Eds.), Urban-suburban interdepe11dencres (pp. 83-1 18). Cambridge, MA: Lincolnlnstitute of Land Policy.

Fnedmann,J., & Alonso, W. (Eds.). ( 1964). Reg10nal dcuelopment ,znd planning: A reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Friedmann, J., & Weaver, C. ( 1979). Te1"rit01y and fimction: Tbe ct•olution ofrcgton,r/ plam11ng. London: Edward Arnold.

Garreau, J. ( 1991 ). Edge city: Lrfe on the new .fro11tier. New York: Doubleday.

Geddes, P. ( 1915/ 1949). CJtres in el'olutron. London: Williams & Norgare

Greens rem, R., & \V1ewcl. \X'. (Eds.). (2000). Urb,rn·subm·ban in­terdependencres. Cambridge. MA: Lincoln lnstirure efLand Policy.

Hall. P. ( 1988/ 1993). Clites of tomorrow: An mtellectual bistOt)' oj' urban pl.mn mg, tmd desrgn in the twentieth cen tray. Cambridge. MA: Blackwell.

II arYl'), D. ( 1973). Soetctl ;us:tce and the crty. London: Edward Arnold.

Hough, M. ( 1990). Out ofpla.ce: Restormg tdentrt_y to the regiun..rl landscapr. New I Iaven, CT: Yale University Press.

In rennodal Surrace Trnnsporracion Efficiency Acr of 1991 (PL 102·240), lOS United Stares Srarures ar Large. pp. 1914 ( 1991, December 18).

lsard, \X'. ( 1975). lntroductrcm to regron,r/ scre11ce. Englewood C!Jff.~ . Nj: Prenuce-Hall.

lsserman, t\. ~1. ( 1993). Lo!>r m space? On rhe hiStory, status. and furure of regional sctence. Tbe Rer•ielll ofRegron..rl Stud­res, 23( I ), l 50.

Jones, V. (l 942). !IJL'tmpolttan gouenrment. Chicago: University ofChtcago Press.

Kar7, ll (Ed.). (2000). Rcjlecttons on regwn,rltsm. \'\'ashington, OC: Bmokmgs Institution Press.

Kelbaugh. D. ( I 997). Common place: Tatmrrl netghborhoorl and regron.tl destgn. Seattle: University ofWa..shingron Press.

Kemm1s. D. ( 1995). The good cil)• and tbe good life: l~encwing tbe senst•o(commrmt/:11. New York: Houghron !'vllmm.

THE NEW REGIONALISM

Kling, R., Olin, S., & Poster, M. (Eds.). (1991 ). PostsubHrban Cali­fornia: The tnmsfonnatiotl ofOrcmge Count~,' smce World \\i'c~r II. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Kunsrler, J. H. ( 1993). T11e geography of nowhere: The rrse and de­cline ofAmerrca 's man-made landscape. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kunsrlcr,J. H. (1996).1/ome from nOt11here: Hem,rkrng ouret~etydi.ly 111orld for the 2Jstcentttl)'· New York: Simon & Schuster.

Ledebur, L., & Barnes, \V. R. (1993). All in it together: Cities, sttb­urbs, and local econonuc regrons. Washington, DC: National League o f Cirics.

Lefebvre, H. ( 1974/ 1991). The production ofspace. (D. N icholson­Smith , Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Lennard, S. H., Lennard, H. L.. & von Ungern-Srernberg, S. (Eds.). ( 1997). Makmg attes ltuable. Carmel, CA: Gondolier Press.

Lim , G. C. (Ed.). ( 1983). Regrona/ planning: EFolutron, crists and prospects. Tarawa, NJ: 1\llanheld, Osmun.

Luccarelli, M. ( 1995). Leu• is Mttmfo,·d a.ncl the ecological region. New York: Guilford Press.

Lynch, K. (1976). Mar1<1gmgthe semeofa region. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lynch, K. (1981 ). Good crty for111. Can1bridge, MA: MIT Press. Markuscn, A. (1995). Growmg pains: Thoughts on theory,

method , and politics for a regional science of the fu rure. International Region,tl Science Re11iew, 17(3 ), 3 19 -326.

Metro Toronro. (I 994). The lit,eable metropolis: The official plan of the municipaltl)' of metropofit,m Torolllo. Toronto, ON: Author.

Moudon. A. V., & Hess, P. (2000). Suburban clusters: The nu­cleation of mulrifa.mdy housing in suburban areas of the cenrral Puger Sound. journal ofthe Amerrcan PlannmgAsso· cratron, 66(3), 243-264.

Mumford , L. ( 1925). Regions- To live in. Stll"flt~y,S4, l5 1- 2. Mt11nford, L. ( 1938). Tbe mltur·e of ettres. New York: Harcourt

Brace Jovanovich. Nasar, J. L. ( 1998). Tbe eflaluatir•e rmage of the crt:v. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. Nathan, M. (Ed.). (2000). The neu• regtonaltsm: St.r..rtegres andgot'­

em.Jnce inthr l:'nglrsb regrons. Manchester, UK: Ccnrer for Local Economic Strategies.

Neuman, M. (2000). Regional design: Recovcnng a great Land­scape architecture and urban planni ng tradition. /,and­sc.tpe ,md Urbar1 P!.mning, 47, I 15 128.

Odum, H. W .. & Moore, H. E. ( 1938). Amenc,m regronalism: A mltural-bistorical approach to national integral/on. New York: Henry Holt.

Orfield, 1\1. ( 1997). 1\ fl!ll·opoltttcs: A regronal agendtt for community anrlstabrlity. W::~shingmn. DC: Brookings lnsrirurion Press & Cambridge, Ml\: Lincoln lnsriwre of Land Policy.

Pa.~ror, ~!., Jr., Dreier, P., Grigsby.). E., I I I, & L6pez-Garza, Jvl. (2000). R.egio11s tiJ..rtlflork: How citres and subttrbs mn grou' to­getber. Minneapolis: UnivcrsiryofMinncsora Press.

Pc1rce, N. R. ( 1993). Crtwates: Howurb,m Amenca can prosper in a cumpetitwe world. \X' ashmgron, DC: Seven Locks Press.

Porrcr, D. R. ( 1992). Stc~te and regronaf mrtiatlt'esfor m.magmg de­l'efopment: Pofrcy rssues crnd P'",zctrct~l concerns. \X' ashingron, DC: Urban Land I nsriru(C.

APAJournal • Summer 2002 • Vol. 68, No.3 277

STEPHEN M. WHEELER

powell, j. a. (2000) Addressing regional dilemmas for minor­iry communities. In B. Katz (Ed.), Reflections on re~onalisw (pp. 2 18- 246). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Relph , E. ( 1987). The modern urban landscape. London: Croom Helm.

Richmond, H. (2000). Metropolitan land use reform: The promise and challenge of majoriry consensus. In B. Katz {Ed.), Reflectiom on regionalism (pp. 9- 39). Washingwn, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Rosenbaum, A., & Mermel, M. ( 1995). Why now is the time to rethink regionalism. Colloqui: Camel! joumal of Pla1ming and Urban lsstiCS, X, 3 1-37.

Roth blatt, D. N., & Sancron, A. (Eds.). (1998). Met7·opoiltangov­emance revisited: American/ Canadian intergovemmental per­spectwes. Berkeley, CA: lnsri rute of Governmental Srudies Press.

Roth blatt, D. N. (I 994). North American metropolitan plan­ning: Canadian and U.S. perspecrives.joumal oftbe Amen­can Planning Association, 60( 4), SO 1-520.

Rowe, C., & Coetcer, F. (1978). Collage cit)•. Cambridge, MA: M IT Press.

Rusk, D. (1993). Cities without suburbs. Balti more: johns Hop­kins Universiry Press.

Rusk, D. (1999). Inside game, outstde game: Winning stnttegiesfor savi11g urban America. Washington, DC: Brookings Insti­tution Press.

Savitch, H. V., Collins, D., Sanders, D., & Markham,j. P. ( 1993). Ties that bind: Central cities, suburbs, and rhe new met­ropolitan region. Economic Development Quarterly, 7(4), 34 1- 357.

Savitch, H. V., & Vogel, R. K. (Eds.). (1996). Re~onal polittcs: Awe7·ica m a post·cityage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Savitch, H. V., & Vogel, R. K. (2000a). Paths to new regionalism. State and Local Government Revietu, 32(3), 158- 168.

Savitch, H. V., & Vogel, R. K. (2000b). Metropolitan consoli­dation versus metropolitan governance in Louisville. State and Local Government Review, 32(3), 198-212.

Seamon, D. (Ed.). (1993). Dwelling, seeing, and designh1g: Toward a phenomenological ecolog;y. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Self, P. ( 1982). Planning the urban region: A comparative study of policies and orga.nizations. London: Allen and Unwin.

278 APAJournal • Summer 2002 • Vol. 68, No.3

Sharpe, LJ. (Ed.). ( 1995). The gor•ermnetJtoftl'orld cities: 17Je future of the me1:1·o model. New York: john Wiley & Sons.

Soja, E. WI. ( 1989). Postmodern geographtes: The retJssmiOIJ ofsp.tcc in critical social tbeory. New York: Verso Books.

Southworrh, M., & Owens, P.M. ( 1993). The evolving metrop­olis: Studies of communi[)·, neighborhood, and srreet form ar the urban edge. journctl of the Amt•rican Pla.nning Association, 59(3), 271- 287.

Sussman, C. (Ed.). (1976). Planning the fourtb mt~·ation: The ne­glected vision of tbe regio11al plt1mrmg association of Anll:'l"ica. Cambridge, MA: MJT Press.

Swanstrom, T. (1995). Philosopher in the ciry: The new regionalism debate. jotmral ofUI·b,m Affairs, 1 7(3), 309-324.

Thomas, K., & Kimberley, S. (1995). Rediscovering regional planning?: Progress on regional planning gu idance in England. Regional Studies, 29( 4), 41-1 422.

Tomaney,J .. & Ward, N. (2000). England and the "new region­alism." Regional Stttdtes, 34(5), 471 478.

Transportation Equity Act for rhe 21st Century (PL 105-178}, 112 United Scares Statutes at Large, pp. 107- 728 (1998, june 9).

Urban Ecology. (1996). B/ll(•pri~ttfora mstamt.~ble Bay Area. Oak­land: Author.

Wannop, U. A. ( 1995). The regional imperatwe: negwnal planning and governance in Britain, Europe, and the U11itecl States. Lon ­don: Jessica Kingsley.

Warren, R. , Rosenrraub, M.S. , & Weschler, L. F. (1990). Build­ing u rban governance: An agenda for the l990s.joumal of Urban Ajfail·s, 14(3/ 4}, 399- 422.

Wcirz, J. , & Selzer, E. ( 1998). Reg1onal planning and regional governance in the Untted Scares 1979- 1996.joumal of Platming Literature, 1 2(2), 361 - 392.

Wheeler, S. M. (2000). Plann ing for merropolHan susram­abiliry.Jouma/ of Planning Educ,ttion and Rese.trch, 20, 133-145.

Wood, R. (1961). 1400 governments. Cambndge, MA: Harvard Universiry Press.

Yaro, R. D., & Hiss, T. ( 1996). A region e~t risk: The third regionaL plan for· the New York- New ]ersey- Connectiwt metropolitan area. Washingron, DC: Island Press.