An interpretive essay on the performative linguistics of contemporary planning practice

Decoding the Dialect of Planning

Urban planning is, among many things, a language. A curious mix of optimism, abstraction, and PowerPoint. Over the years, we’ve developed a vocabulary so rich in nuance — and so poor in meaning — that it deserves its own field of study. If semiotics is the study of signs and symbols, then stakeholder alignment is surely our Rosetta Stone.

This is not an exposé but an affectionate exploration. After all, I’ve contributed my fair share of “integrated frameworks” and “transformative strategies.” The words tumble out naturally, like professional muscle memory. Somewhere between inclusive governance and multi-scalar intervention, planning becomes not just a discipline, but a dialect — one that sounds profound, even when it’s not entirely clear what’s being said.

So let us, as earnest practitioners and recovering PowerPoint poets, take a walk through the linguistic jungle of our own making:

Stakeholder Engagement: The Theatre of Participation

Every project begins with the ceremonial act of stakeholder engagement. We gather residents, business owners, and assorted community enthusiasts in a fluorescent-lit room and speak solemnly of “co-creating a shared urban narrative.” People nod. Sticky notes multiply. The facilitator writes “sense of belonging” on a flip chart and circles it twice.

Later, the report will say the session “generated valuable insights and confirmed local aspirations.” Which, translated, means: no one agreed on anything, but the snacks were good. The beauty of engagement lies not in what is decided, but in what is documented.

Strategic Visioning for Adaptive Frameworks of Resilience

Once the stakeholders are duly aligned, it’s time for strategic visioning. We don’t make plans anymore — too rigid. Instead, we produce “vision frameworks” that are “adaptive,” “iterative,” and “future-ready.” These documents are marvels of abstraction: bold in ambition, light on detail, and resistant to failure by design.

Every paragraph radiates verbs of hope — enabling, fostering, catalysing, facilitating. Each implies action without specifying by whom. It’s linguistic alchemy: turning vagueness into authority.

Data-Driven, Yet Endearingly Subjective

No planner dares present a project without invoking data. “Data-driven decision-making” has become our shield and sword — the ultimate justification for whatever we were going to propose anyway.

We produce heat maps, charts, and dashboards glowing in primary colors, accompanied by phrases like “spatial intelligence” and “evidence-based optimization.” In truth, much of this intelligence comes from long observation and educated hunches. But the presence of a graph lends the reassuring scent of science. Our ancestors had compasses; we have infographics.

The Deliverables: PDFs as Monuments

Consultancy, at its heart, is an act of document production. Our outputs are grandly titled and endlessly formatted:

• Strategic Spatial Framework (subject undefined)
• Implementation Roadmap (directions not included)
• Quick Wins Plan (execution optional)
• Summary of Learnings (spin guaranteed)

Each deliverable concludes with the eternal phrase: Next Steps. It’s comforting, circular, and perfectly non-committal.

Sustainability, Resilience, and Other Holy Words

The modern planner’s creed begins with “sustainability,” proceeds to “resilience,” and concludes with “inclusivity.” These words are our talismans — we attach them to every project to ward off irrelevance. Add “smart mobility” or “nature-based solutions” and the report practically writes itself. It’s not that we don’t believe in these concepts — we do, deeply. But their overuse has transformed them from guiding principles into polite punctuation. Still, they give our work moral weight, and who can begrudge us that?

The Way Forward: A Holistic, Iteratively Adaptive Paradigm

And now, as tradition demands, I conclude with a call for a holistic, inclusive, multidisciplinary, and future-oriented approach to co-creating resilient urban ecosystems. Or, in plain language: maybe we should just make places that work — and that people like.

Epilogue: In Fairness to Planners Everywhere

Before we get too self-conscious, let’s admit something: we’re not the only ones. Architects speak of spatial narratives when they mean “corridors.” Economists produce macroeconomic stabilization frameworks that boil down to “don’t spend too much.” Sociologists have discursive performativity matrices. Tech consultants? They’ve built an entire industry on leveraging synergies for digital transformation.

Compared to that, “stakeholder alignment” feels almost innocent. So perhaps planning jargon isn’t a problem to solve, but a quirk to cherish — a kind of professional folklore. It may be pompous, circular, and hilariously verbose, but beneath all the acronyms and buzzwords lies a sincere desire: to make cities better, somehow.

Even if it takes a few extra syllables to say so.

Cover image generated with the help of AI