Aesthetic justice and urban planning: Who ought to have the right to design cities?

This paper brings together two diverse approaches to urban planning. The first approach views planning as a means to distribute goods or welfare in society, and therefore considers the promotion of social justice to be the central objective of planning. The second approach highlights the role of planning as a means to produce aesthetically pleasing everyday surroundings. I will explore the concepts of 'aesthetic welfare' and 'aesthetic justice' developed by the philosopher Monroe Beardsley, and argue that an aesthetically pleasing environment is an important source of aesthetic welfare in society. My contention, then, is that the fair distribution of this welfare should be one of the objectives of public planning policies. This objective, however, is difficult to achieve, since the question cannot only concern the distribution of the aesthetically good environment. This is because there often is no agreement on the criteria for the aesthetically good environment. Thus, I will eventually reject the idea of aesthetic justice as distributive justice that Beardsley advocates. Instead, I will turn to some contemporary theories of justice that question the model of distributive justice, arguing that theories of justice should go beyond the distribution of goods, and encompass also the conception and production of goods. Thus, as I will maintain, aesthetic justice will be eventually best promoted by opening the aesthetic dimension of urban planning (among other dimensions of it) to public participation.