The recent (and current) discussions regarding the MMC’s proposed regional land-use and development plan have exposed (but not addressed) an important issue that underlies the entire debate: is there a theoretical justification for regionalism and if so, what is it?
Those who oppose regionalism and its manifestations will often try and discredit regional planning efforts by claiming that regionalism is merely and ideology – i.e., a normative view of the world which is not based on fact, but rather on political preference (or social class or something else which cannot be measured objectively). A good example of this is the view expressed by the Mayor of Mirabel, Hubert Meilleur, to the effect that the regional plan (and regional planning more generally) is a conspiracy of the urban elites who want to “castrate” the development of suburbs and exurbs. No jokes.
The truth is that regionalism – defined as an approach to planning/research which takes the natural or metro region as its focal unit – sits somewhere between ideology and science. To assert that regionalism is completely devoid of ideology would be delusional – its forefathers, like Patrick Geddes, Benton MacKaye and Lewis Mumford, certainly had an ideological axe to grind. Moreover, the very idea of regionalism (like that of federalism) cannot be understood separately from its normative dimension: regionalists do not consider the “region” merely as yet another useful unit of analysis for ecology, social science and planning, they consider it to be the most fundamental unit.
No doubt, this claim is far from objective – it is not an empirical statement as such, and cannot be “proved” right or wrong. Yet it has strong empirical foundations: ecosystems usually extend across and beyond municipal boundaries, urban settlements rely on their hinterland for food, water and the absorption of pollutants and commuter-sheds are generally regional in scale. The boundaries of eco-regions do not necessarily conform to those of metro regions, but the point is that the region (however defined) matters for ecology and the economy.
I should point out here that regionalism does not necessarily imply a political stance: to say that “regions matter” is not to militate in favor of regional government or regional redistribution. It is simply a recognition that regional processes affect local and national policies (and plans).
My own personal take – based on these observations – is that regionalism is an ethical stance rather than an ideological one. Ideology needs not be based on fact, but ethics must confront empirical reality. In short, regionalism states that we cannot “care for our world” if we do not take the “region” into account.
Which raises the question: have we, like Goethe’s Faust in his final throes, given up on “caring” for the world? If not, then we should become aware of the fact that we are locally and regionally embedded – whatever we think about city-suburban politics.