Does planning need the plan?

From modern city planning's inception in the mid-nineteenth century, the Plan was its centerpiece. After World War II the plan's fortunes ebbed. Plans and comprehensive planning were subject to powerful critiques. In spite of eloquent defenses, practice and theory shifted from plan to process. Urban planners were advised to perform "middle-range" rather than comprehensive tasks. Theorists focused, first, on decisions and, later, on discourse and communicative action. Paradoxically, this situation has existed alongside the fact that many important recent advances have been the result of plans. Why is this tendency not being researched more? Why is contemporary planning theory generally quiet about the plan? Why are planners themselves shying away from general plans in favor of quicker fixes? This article compares plan-based and nonplan-based planning by looking at both practice and theory in historical and transatlantic perspective.