The previous section explored the history of planning theory and laid the foundation for planning to become a caring profession. On top that foundation we will now unpack what therapeutic planning entails, how it has been used in planning theory and practice so far, and how it allows planners to assume a community caregiver role. Such understanding is important as therapy has traditional held a dirty connotation within the planning world, occupying the lowest rung of Arnstein’s later of participation (1). Sandercock tries to reappropriate the term moving away from Arnstein’s placating definition to one that encompasses the transformative potential of thoughtful professional/client interactions. The gist of this reappropriation is a shift from therapy as oughts and shoulds to therapy as exploring what could be (2).
At the birth of therapeutic planning Sandercock claimed that “with a successful therapeutically oriented approach to managing our co-existence in the shared spaces of neighbourhoods, cities and regions, there is capacity for collective growth” (3). Sandercock was making parallels to the potential for healing and growth that people experience from the caring professions. Could a similar transformation be possible at the community level? A more detailed framing has formed in Sandercock’s subsequent visits to the model. Therapeutic planning entails:
The goal of this framework is twofold: at the process level it clears away barriers of conflict and trauma to create space for decision making; at the individual level participants in the process will have the opportunity for healing and improved mental health and wellbeing. Erfan elaborates on this approach:
“Therapeutic Planning is not a manipulative make-them-feel better tactic, nor is it a formal cure-them-all approach. Therapeutic planning is emotionally engaged planning, which intends to support a process of healing and reconstruction of meaning. It is a dialogical, rational, embodied and collaborative process that brings community members together and creates conditions for them to work through collective traumas” (5).
Erfan is quick to place therapeutic planning in the rational decision-making process. Creating space for conflict and trauma allows for decisions that better reflect the emotional needs of the community. It creates an experience between members of the community, stakeholders and government where their pain is acknowledged, further harms are actively mitigated against, and the opportunity for healing is presented. Sandercock’s fascination with community healing is that it opens the door for social transformation; “a process of public learning that results in permanent shifts in values and institutions” (3).
The capacity to facilitate such shifts open pathways for planners through complex social problems and allows them to better actualize the public interest. Since the public interest occupies such a central role in the planning profession’s identity and code of practice, therapeutic planning is an opportunity for the profession to better realize its own vision. But is planning ready to be a transformative force? Is there room in the development application process or the secondary planning process for healing and social transformation?
At the birth of therapeutic planning Sandercock claimed that “with a successful therapeutically oriented approach to managing our co-existence in the shared spaces of neighbourhoods, cities and regions, there is capacity for collective growth” (3). Sandercock was making parallels to the potential for healing and growth that people experience from the caring professions. Could a similar transformation be possible at the community level? A more detailed framing has formed in Sandercock’s subsequent visits to the model. Therapeutic planning entails:
- Recognizing that the past is often very present in planning conflicts.
- Recognizing that past injustices shape what is possible in the present and often prevent constructive solutions from emerging.
- Providing a process for collective recognition of these tensions and for working through these historic wounds and memories. (4)
The goal of this framework is twofold: at the process level it clears away barriers of conflict and trauma to create space for decision making; at the individual level participants in the process will have the opportunity for healing and improved mental health and wellbeing. Erfan elaborates on this approach:
“Therapeutic Planning is not a manipulative make-them-feel better tactic, nor is it a formal cure-them-all approach. Therapeutic planning is emotionally engaged planning, which intends to support a process of healing and reconstruction of meaning. It is a dialogical, rational, embodied and collaborative process that brings community members together and creates conditions for them to work through collective traumas” (5).
Erfan is quick to place therapeutic planning in the rational decision-making process. Creating space for conflict and trauma allows for decisions that better reflect the emotional needs of the community. It creates an experience between members of the community, stakeholders and government where their pain is acknowledged, further harms are actively mitigated against, and the opportunity for healing is presented. Sandercock’s fascination with community healing is that it opens the door for social transformation; “a process of public learning that results in permanent shifts in values and institutions” (3).
The capacity to facilitate such shifts open pathways for planners through complex social problems and allows them to better actualize the public interest. Since the public interest occupies such a central role in the planning profession’s identity and code of practice, therapeutic planning is an opportunity for the profession to better realize its own vision. But is planning ready to be a transformative force? Is there room in the development application process or the secondary planning process for healing and social transformation?
1. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
2. Schweitzer, L. (2016). Restorative planning ethics: The therapeutic imagination and planning in public institutions. Planning Theory,15(2), 130-144.
3. Sandercock L. (2003). Cosmopolis 2: Mongrel cities of the 21st century. London: Continuum.
4. Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2014). Changing the Lens. Journal of Planning Education and Research,34(1), 19-29.
5. Erfan, A. (2017). Confronting collective traumas: An exploration of therapeutic planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 34-50.
2. Schweitzer, L. (2016). Restorative planning ethics: The therapeutic imagination and planning in public institutions. Planning Theory,15(2), 130-144.
3. Sandercock L. (2003). Cosmopolis 2: Mongrel cities of the 21st century. London: Continuum.
4. Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2014). Changing the Lens. Journal of Planning Education and Research,34(1), 19-29.
5. Erfan, A. (2017). Confronting collective traumas: An exploration of therapeutic planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 34-50.