ABSTRACT
The study of the history of urban planning has been justified in a number of ways. In 1943, Feiss argued that ‘in a field changing as rapidly as city planning, textbooks become obsolete overnight, but the constantly enlarging material dealing with historical background remains an important basis for the reasoned steps any planner must take’ (Feiss, 1943). A similar utilitarian logic is adopted by Sutcliffe (1981a:7). There is also the academic stance: the past not only informs the present but enriches our understanding of the ‘spirit and purpose of planning’(Cherry, 1969). Hancock sees the historical analysis of planning mitigating professional ignorance, offering a more secure basis for decision-making ‘than that provided by knowledge of the present alone’, fostering a critical reappraisal of basic concepts, and explicating ‘the whole process of planned innovation and societal change’ (Hancock, 1972). Eschewing elaborate justification Reps puts his case simply and bluntly: ‘there is really no need to be defensive about planning history. It obviously has merit’ (Reps, 1981:13). One index is the 1400 titles assembled in a recent bibliography and adjudged ‘by any standards … an impressive body of materials’ (Sutcliffe, 1981a:8).
