Models at the time of weak planning. Their role, if any

If the present weak character of planning is generally undisputed, such weakness can be actually observed on several aspects. There is an objective notion of weakness, due to the feeble role planning has actually played in managing the territorial development, with scarce effects on its dynamics. On this regard, planning is said to be weak, as it actually lacks the strength and incisiveness it once was assigned. Another notion of weakness is proposed as resulting from a dialogical vision of planning, often and variously referred to as advocacy planning, equity planning, progressive planning, participatory planning, collaborative planning, community- based planning: a weakness deriving from renouncing to design and realize scenarios, for rather managing the decision process, interacting with citizens and communities. On this last regard, planning is weak as aimed at organizing a process rather than providing a product. A third kind of weakness could be said programmatic, as deriving from a different role some suggest it ought to play: not to be intended as an oriented action towards a desirable state, but rather as a system of rules aimed at regulating the development of settlements by means of the definition of what can be made and the prohibition of what is excluded. On this second regard, planning is said to be weak, as it is hoped to renounce its traditional assertive and ‘strong’ role. In light of such variety of meanings, the question of the current role of models as planning support tools should properly be posed with reference to the different meanings of weakness, so as to provide different responses. What is the purpose and the content of the present paper.