How do cities plan for the unplanned? Do we plan for recovery from every possible sudden shock? Do we prepare earthquake recovery plans, hurricane recovery plans, and flood recovery plans? What about plans for recovery from severe air pollution or from the destruction of riots? How does one prepare a plan for the recovery after a horrible and entirely unexpected tragedy, such as the terrorist attacks on New York City on September 11, 2001?In this study, the author looks at two megacities, Los Angeles and Mexico City, which are presumed examples of poorplanning, such as haphazard growth, physical dispersion, traffic congestion, air pollution, severe economicdisparities, natural disasters, and humanly created crises. It assesses how and why some planning institutions work better than others in such difficult conditions. There is a focus on institutional culture, using crises as a test of an institution's strengths and weakness. How did planning institutions respond to the 1985 earthquake in Mexico City and the 1994 earthquake in Los Angeles? Both housing recovery programs were successful, rebuilding housing in a remarkably short time, leveraging large amounts of resources, coordinating among a wide range of organizations, reaching out to communities, and not only restoring normalcy, but actually improving upon pre-earthquake conditions.This study is of interest to scholars in urban studies--including sociology and political science--and urban planning, students of public policy and planning and professional practitioners of planning, policy, and public administration. Readers will find several of the following revealing insights to be useful. Copyright (C) Muze Inc. 2005. For personal use only. All rights reserved.