Vision, vested interest and pragmatism: who re‐made Britain’s blitzed cities?

Growth-management implementation in Metropolitan Vancouver: lessons from actor-network theory

“…To trace flows, Callon (1986) and some other ANT scholars (Davies, 2002;Essex and Brayshay, 2007;Selman, 2000) identify four broad stages in network activity towards a social goal as a possible frame for analysis. These include: (1) problematisation (agreement on issues and goals); (2) interessement (where actors agree and begin to collaborate, or where collaborative efforts are actively blocked); (3) enrolment (where actors try to gain support from others often outside the network); and (4) mobilisation (where people perform or fail to perform assigned tasks and roles).…”

“…It assesses multijurisdictional efforts to decentralise offices from the metropolitan central business district (CBD) to a suburban node or regional town centre (RTC), to implement a broader metropolitan growth management (MGM) strategy. The paper joins a small but growing number of works examining plan creation and implementation from an actor-network theory (ANT) perspective (Beauregard, 2012;Cowell and Murdoch, 1999;Dankert, 2007;Doak and Karadimitriou, 2007;Essex and Brayshay, 2007;Hommels, 2010;Murdoch and Marsden, 1995;Ruming, 2008;Selman, 2000;Tait, 2002; see also Hillier, 2000; for more implicitly compatible studies). ANT encourages dynamic analyses of plan implementation, recognising shifting variables and the inherent instability of implementation networks.…”

Review of periodical literature published in 2007

“…In urban history, the received view of postwar reconstruction suggests a fairly swift and harmonious development and implementation of plans conceived and driven forward by one or two key individuals. Essex and Brayshay's study of the reconstruction of Plymouth highlights the fact that such plans required many actors and interests with different agendas to implement them. Once initial postwar reconstruction was over, the inner residential districts of London began to be transformed by a phenomenon that did not then have a name but which was later termed ‘gentrification’, a process investigated by Moran (in Journal of Urban History ).…”

Boldness diminished? The post-war battle to replan a bomb-damaged provincial city

“…Arguably as the country's foremost planner of the time, Professor Patrick Abercrombie of the University of London was thus employed as a consultant on the recommendation of George Pepler at the Ministry of Health and without open recruitment. 31 He would work with the city engineer and surveyor, James Paton Watson, to produce the Plan for Plymouth, which was eventually published in 1944 and formed the basis of the city's reconstruction. Steps were taken to ensure that the document itself acquired celebrated status.…”

“…Again, although there were some notable mistakes and compromises, this approach of co-ordinating the design and physical appearance of redevelopment in a reconstruction area was pioneered in Plymouth. 80 One of the main problems for the implementation of the plan was the availability of appropriate staff and labour at all levels. During hostilities, Paton Watson's department had been reduced from its pre-war establishment of 40 to a staff of just 16, of whom four were aged over 60 and two were trainees under 20.…”