ABSTRACT
Conceiving planning theory as a kind of practical reason shifts attention from the work of justifying planning beliefs rationally to the work of creating real options: this is the challenge of understanding plan making as an applied feature of practical reasoning. In this chapter I show how adopting this viewpoint allows for the comparison of what rational planning theory keeps apart: theories about plan making that focus on the representation of urban development (e.g., Lew Hopkins) and theories that study the intentional, practice-oriented features of deliberative planning processes (e.g., Judith Innes). Analysis demonstrates that the seemingly incompatible viewpoints can offer complementary insights about plan making without diminishing or distorting important differences. There need be no epistemic or theoretical gap separating the representation and intention of plan making; no big difference between substance and process. The differences are practical.
