The problem with master planning

By Riccardo Bobisse

The use of the word ‘masterplan’ has become more and more contentious, as well-illustrated by David Rudlin in his recent article in BD. The word itself also weakens the concept of co-authorship, essential in preparing spatial or development strategies (and no, I don’t expect a free copy of David Rudlin’s new book anytime soon for using the term ‘development strategies’ instead of ‘masterplans’!).

Masterplanning as a practice is a broad church, which is very visible in the makeup of the Urban Design Group for example. Multidisciplinarity and the nature of urban design as a mediator, bringing together different skills and finding a synthesis, is to be cherished. The field thrives on these layers, integrating perspectives to produce robust development strategies.

Becoming an urban designer is not a one-size-fits-all journey. There are multiple pathways, each valid in its own right. At AR Urbanism, most of us have studied architecture, but we also have colleagues from different backgrounds like planning, regeneration, transport and landscape design. This variety fosters stimulating discussions, challenges our preconceptions, and ultimately enhances the quality of our work.

However, the inclusivity of the field has its pitfalls. The "masterplanner" space has become so broad that it risks dilution. Practices of a range of flavours—planners, architects, landscape architects, and surveyors—often label themselves as masterplanners without substantial experience in the field. This apparent flexibility often stems from some designers’ belief that they can handle projects of any scale, from interiors to entire cities.

This misconception has been conveniently nurtured within the industry to upsell or cross-sell other services, often unfortunately leading to a race to the bottom in terms of fees. Clients' often unrealistic expectations and the property industry's tendency to treat masterplans as loss leaders do not help, and we can end up with beautiful renders that lack depth in either analysis or concept.

Can we do better, without shutting the profession to professionals without a post-grad urban degree and a number of years of experience? Doing that could help a bit but not solve the problem, and probably have the side-effect of killing the beautiful richness of urban design as a space of synthesis among experience.

Maybe we need instead to promote the value of a good masterplan, particularly to the public sector, as a means of maintaining high quality development. The new government’s push for more housing could be a good testing ground for this approach. In the meantime, let’s continue the discussion around finding an alternative to the word masterplan.