Wired Magazine ran a feature earlier this year about the effect of designing under constraint. The primary point of the section dealt with the fact that artists, architects, engineers, and designers work best when they are provided a set of guidelines under which to produce a work. It is under these restrictions that innovation and creativity flourish. Wired quickly sets this view of constraint against the lack of restraint that led to the housing market and financial crash. It is generally accepted now (though certainly in discussion) that regulation is needed. As Scott Dadich points out "the lack of limits has proven to be a false freedom."

Planning certainly falls under the hat of "regulation." Does planning work best when we as planners are faced with restrictions (NIMBY-ism, environmental protection, public involvement) or lack thereof (urban renewal)?

A couple things to think about:
Jane Jacobs would probably prefer to restrict/end planning altogether.
And then there's the fact that the APA just gave a planning award to the Houston neighborhood of Montrose, an unplanned neighborhood.

So where does that leave us? Are we like the designers, able to provide a better built environment to the public through restrictions (both on ourselves and on the practice of building)? As the policy writers, do barriers help us to frame an issue and focus on potential actions and initiatives?