CC-BYHealey, Patsy2024-12-092024-12-0920170251-362510.1080/02513625.2017.1340538https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2017.1340538https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/2289disP - The Planning Review, 53:2Atlanta, Georgia, 1985. We are at the annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) in the US, both invited for a special session on developments in planning in Europe. Klaus Kunzmann was already well-known in regional development planning circles. I was only there as a substitute for Mike Batty, who had fallen ill with pneumonia. But both of us felt somewhat alien inside the huge hotel and conference complex, and outside in the centre of the city, where we seemed to be the only people, in our separate explorations, trying to discover the area on foot. It was in this challenging context that we came together. We were both excited by the intellectual energy evident at the ACSP event. Could such an arena be created in Europe, then vigorously building a transnational single market and encouraging professional interconnections? Could this be done not as a reproduction of the ACSP model, but in a distinctive and European way, infused with a deep awareness of the diversity of cultural, economic and political conditions across the continent? We knew that, in Europe, planning systems and practices, and education for these practices, had arisen in several different ways. In several countries, the architectural tradition dominated. In others, an engineering origin was more significant, while in eastern Europe, planning was often strongly linked to urban and regional economics (Rodriguez- Bachiller 1988; Frank 2006). We sought to recognise these different strands, while emphasising the focus on place and spatial relations, on urban and regional dynamics and environmental qualities. Both of us understood the planning field as about the interaction of people and places, and how to enhance place qualities for the benefit of ordinary citizens.EnglishopenAccessArticle