Master Planning and Regional Planning are planning approaches that goes pari-pasu. However, they ... more Master Planning and Regional Planning are planning approaches that goes pari-pasu. However, they do not mean the same thing in the planning parlance. The disparity between them notwithstanding, they overlap both in theory and in practice. Hence, the two concepts both faces and presents a dilemma if meanings. Master Planning concerns itself with the periodic organization of the structure and function of the urban environment within foreseeable future. Its role is to provide a pragmatic policy document whose aim is to solve a city's existing problems, as well as curtail possible future problems. In view of this, Amirtahmasebi et'al (2015) saw a master plan as a dynamic long-term planning policy document that provides a conceptual layout to guide future growth and development. In essence, master plan plays a significant role in shaping the growth, physical structure and function of the city along preconceived and predetermined lines. Philipsen (2019) defined master planning as the creation of a framework within which development parcels, massing, heights, as well as the relationship of buildings, circulation and streets are designed in enough detail to define predictable outcome; but with sufficient flexibility to allow various responses of actual developers and designers. In a nutshell, master plans are regulatory planning toolkits whose main focus is on spatial organization in terms of space standards, zoning and other forms of land use control. Master planning, therefore, adopts the comprehensive planning approach to create physical planning design, specifies standards in terms of minimum and maximum requirements for developments, zone land uses and adopt legal control measures to guide and ensure implementation. It has, however, been argued that the master planning approach cannot adequately address the problem of urbanisation and its social and physical characteristics (Oyesiku, 2004; Alabi, 2008; Jiriko, 2008). In fact, the literature suggests that the Urban Master Planning system, over the years, has proven to be both highly insufficient, inefficient and ineffective to guide physical development in). Urban Master Plans were prepared for cities such as Washington D.C and many others in USA; the idea was just imported to Nigeria and some other developing countries and used/adopted as planning strategy (Jiriko, 2008; Wapwera and Egbu, 2013) without taking into cognisance its suitability for our spatio-cultural landscape. Regional Planning, on the other hand, is basically concerned with the (re)distribution of (economic) resources within a geographic entity that is larger than a single urban setting.
Master Planning and Regional Planning are planning approaches that goes pari-pasu. However, they ... more Master Planning and Regional Planning are planning approaches that goes pari-pasu. However, they do not mean the same thing in the planning parlance. The disparity between them notwithstanding, they overlap both in theory and in practice. Hence, the two concepts both faces and presents a dilemma if meanings. Master Planning concerns itself with the periodic organization of the structure and function of the urban environment within foreseeable future. Its role is to provide a pragmatic policy document whose aim is to solve a city's existing problems, as well as curtail possible future problems. In view of this, Amirtahmasebi et'al (2015) saw a master plan as a dynamic long-term planning policy document that provides a conceptual layout to guide future growth and development. In essence, master plan plays a significant role in shaping the growth, physical structure and function of the city along preconceived and predetermined lines. Philipsen (2019) defined master planning as the creation of a framework within which development parcels, massing, heights, as well as the relationship of buildings, circulation and streets are designed in enough detail to define predictable outcome; but with sufficient flexibility to allow various responses of actual developers and designers. In a nutshell, master plans are regulatory planning toolkits whose main focus is on spatial organization in terms of space standards, zoning and other forms of land use control. Master planning, therefore, adopts the comprehensive planning approach to create physical planning design, specifies standards in terms of minimum and maximum requirements for developments, zone land uses and adopt legal control measures to guide and ensure implementation. It has, however, been argued that the master planning approach cannot adequately address the problem of urbanisation and its social and physical characteristics (Oyesiku, 2004; Alabi, 2008; Jiriko, 2008). In fact, the literature suggests that the Urban Master Planning system, over the years, has proven to be both highly insufficient, inefficient and ineffective to guide physical development in). Urban Master Plans were prepared for cities such as Washington D.C and many others in USA; the idea was just imported to Nigeria and some other developing countries and used/adopted as planning strategy (Jiriko, 2008; Wapwera and Egbu, 2013) without taking into cognisance its suitability for our spatio-cultural landscape. Regional Planning, on the other hand, is basically concerned with the (re)distribution of (economic) resources within a geographic entity that is larger than a single urban setting.
Uploads
Drafts by Isaac Ibelieve
Papers by Isaac Ibelieve