Search

In the journal 'Raumforschung und Raumordnung' (RuR), the topic of spatial planning in the GDR played but a subordinate role. Nevertheless, it is possible to deduce basic statements on the reception of GDR territorial planning. This paper examines articles in the journal with the aim of identifying tendencies in discussion of spatial planning in the GDR. It is essential to also take a look at the development of spatial planning in the GDR itself in order to trace the relationship between the image in the journal and the real frame of reference in the GDR. The analysis oscillates between chronological consideration of epistemologically promising articles in RuR and distinctive findings in GDR planning research. The focus of the analysis is on key publications that also contribute to interpretation of the spatial turn. The tendencies found also reflected socio-political connotations of federal policy towards the GDR. These began with rather distanced reporting on the 'Soviet zone' and critical observations on individual aspects of spatial planning there. This was followed by increasingly objective reports and critiques that sketched a differentiated picture of spatial planning in the GDR. Finally, the papers comprised professional discussion about the GDR on equal terms, combining critical reflection with consideration of problems in the FRG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, the emergence of planning law and the juridification of planning in Germany did not follow any planning theory, but a logic inherent to the constitutional state. Only in small number of cases did the legislature or the judiciary adopt elements of planning theories, most of which were developed much later. Law defines itself by its strict claim to be obeyed. Therefore, the requirements of planning law may conflict with the recommendations of normative planning theories and then claim precedence over these. Nevertheless, with regard to the viability of some proposals of agonistic planning theories, legal borderlines arise. This paper deals with these borderlines. However, the goal of agonistic theories of planning coincides with the basic function of planning law to pacify conflicting interests and to reach acceptable solutions. Opponents of state planning projects thus are entitled to participate in planning procedures and to file farreaching lawsuits. However, the legal order also sets limits to legitimate resistance to democratic planning and cannot refrain from distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate forms of rejection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]