Why Urban Planning Does Exist: A Response to the “End of Planning” Thesis

A provocative essay arguing that urban planning “does not exist” has drawn a detailed rebuttal from a veteran US planning academic, reigniting a long-running debate about the purpose and legitimacy of public-sector planning. The exchange, published on the City Observatory website, carries direct relevance for London as the capital grapples with its own planning reform agenda, the London Plan review, and ongoing tensions between long-term strategy and fast-moving development pressures.

The original essay, “Who Shapes the Territory? Or, Why Urban Planning Does Not Exist,” by Roberto Deriu, appeared on the architecture and design website Common/Edge. Deriu’s central argument is that planning, as practised, is largely a negotiation between private interests and public bodies, and that its claims to shape cities are hollow. He calls for abandoning 20-year plans in favour of “discrete, fully financed strategic projects,” formalising the negotiating table, and grounding planning in clear ecological objectives.

Ethan Seltzer, Emeritus Professor of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University and a former president of the City of Portland Planning Commission, has now published a response on City Observatory. Seltzer argues that Deriu’s critique, while rhetorically effective, misunderstands both the history and the practice of planning.

Key facts
| Aspect | Detail |
|——–|——–|
| Original essay | “Who Shapes the Territory? Or, Why Urban Planning Does Not Exist” by Roberto Deriu, published on Common/Edge |
| Response author | Ethan Seltzer, Emeritus Professor, Portland State University; former president, City of Portland Planning Commission |
| Publication | City Observatory, 5 October 2026 |
| Core disagreement | Whether long-term plans are essential or obsolete; whether politics is a planning failure or an inherent feature of resource allocation |
| Relevance to London | Mirrors UK debates about local plan reform, the London Plan review, and tensions between strategic planning and project-led development |

The planning-as-negotiation argument

Seltzer accepts Deriu’s observation that planning, in practice, is largely a transactional process. Plans are guides that often cannot anticipate everything that people might want for their land or their community. Private interests engage public planning bodies to negotiate fixes, and this has been the subject of planning theory for at least 50 years.

“This is not new or enlightening,” Seltzer writes. “The last 50 years of planning theoretical debates have most often revolved around the role that plans and planners play in what is in reality, a transactional process.”

But Seltzer rejects the conclusion that this makes planning meaningless. He argues that Deriu’s attack on “politics” overlooks the fact that politics is simply the process by which societies allocate limited resources. “In a world of limited resources, that negotiation through our politics is ongoing and never-ending. To think otherwise is simply naive.”

For London readers, this mirrors a familiar tension. The London Plan, first adopted in 2004 and last reviewed in 2021, sets out a 20-to-25-year strategic framework for the capital’s growth. Yet development decisions are frequently shaped by site-specific negotiations between developers and borough planning committees, often under the shadow of the Mayor’s direction powers and the government’s housing delivery targets. The question of whether the strategic plan or the site-by-site negotiation is the real driver of London’s shape is not merely academic.

The problem with short-term strategic projects

Deriu’s second proposal — replacing 20-year plans with “discrete, fully financed strategic projects” — draws the strongest criticism from Seltzer. He raises several practical objections.

First, without a long-term context, it becomes impossible to assess the potential for unintended consequences. A new road, a housing estate, or a piece of public realm may make sense in isolation but create problems for surrounding areas that only a wider plan can reveal.

Second, Seltzer asks why the inertia of past decisions should take precedence over all other possibilities. “Why would a list of ‘strategic projects’ not succumb to the same political manipulation that he says plans are bedevilled by?” he writes.

Third, and most pointedly, Seltzer invokes the legacy of Robert Moses, the mid-20th-century New York planner who built highways, bridges, and parks through a project-led approach that paid little regard to community impact or long-term consequences. “Robert Moses would love this,” Seltzer writes.

In London, the tension between strategic planning and project-led development is visible in the ongoing debate about the Lower Thames Crossing, the Silvertown Tunnel, and the Bakerloo line extension. Each is a large, discrete, fully financed strategic project. Yet each has been criticised for proceeding without adequate consideration of its wider transport, environmental, and social impacts. The London Plan’s spatial strategy is supposed to provide that context, but critics argue that major projects are often decided in Whitehall or at Transport for London with limited reference to the plan.

Transparency versus capacity

Deriu’s third proposal — formalising the negotiating table and making it public and accessible — Seltzer describes as welcome in principle but naive in practice.

“Nothing wrong with transparency and access, but who can afford to engage in every negotiation?” Seltzer asks. “In a fast-moving world, offering a chair is of little consequence to individuals and communities unable to keep up with the pace of changes being proposed.”

This is a direct challenge to the idea that procedural reform alone can address planning’s democratic deficits. London’s neighbourhood forums, amenity societies, and residents’ associations already struggle to participate in the hundreds of planning applications submitted each year. Making the “negotiating table” more formal would not solve the underlying problem of unequal capacity and resources.

Seltzer also notes that Deriu’s essay relies heavily on planning history from about 100 years ago and older, and ends up largely citing architects rather than planners. “On one hand he criticises planning for not having an exclusive technical language and practice, and on the other he criticises planning for relying on ideas and concepts unable to keep up with the pace of change in society and the ebbs and flows of politics. He wants it both ways.”

What planning actually does

Seltzer argues that Deriu ignores the role planning plays in engaging everyone in making plans. When governing systems cannot hold private interests and public planners and decision-makers accountable to broadly understood and adopted plans, that is a governance problem, not a planning problem.

“I have seen long-term plans that have made a profound difference for our city and region, and proposed ‘strategic projects’ that, if fully funded, would have made this a far less liveable place,” Seltzer writes.

He acknowledges that cities rely on institutions and rules because the relational basis for decision-making associated with very small towns and neighbourhoods cannot operate at a city-wide, let alone metropolitan, scale. “I would love to live in a city where I knew everyone and about everything going on or being conceived, but I don’t. There are 650,000 of us here in Portland alone.”

For London, with its 8.9 million residents, 32 boroughs, and the Greater London Authority, the point is even more stark. A planning system based on informal negotiation and “strategic projects” alone would struggle to manage the scale and complexity of the capital’s growth, housing need, and infrastructure demands.

What this means for London’s planning debate

The exchange between Deriu and Seltzer arrives at a moment when London’s planning system is under sustained pressure. The government’s proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill, expected in late 2026, is likely to accelerate development through streamlined processes and a greater emphasis on project delivery. The London Plan review, due to begin formal consultation in 2027, will need to balance strategic vision with the flexibility that developers and boroughs demand.

Seltzer’s response does not defend every aspect of current planning practice. He acknowledges that plans are often imperfect, that politics can distort outcomes, and that the system is slow. But he argues that abandoning long-term planning in favour of short-term, designer-led projects would be a mistake.

“Designers will undoubtedly love his line of thought,” Seltzer writes, “since it looks to their presumed expertise as being decisive in the present-oriented, short-term world he is settling for.”

The debate is unlikely to be settled by one exchange. But for London planners, councillors, and residents following the city’s planning reform trajectory, the arguments on both sides deserve careful consideration. The question is not whether planning exists, but what kind of planning London needs, and how to make it work better.

Source: City Observatory, “Deriu on ‘Why Urban Planning Does Not Exist’: A Response” by Ethan Seltzer, 5 October 2026. https://cityobservatory.org/deriu-on-why-urban-planning-does-not-exist-a-response/

Datos clave