Go on planners... join the conversation :)

CLICK HERE TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT CANBERRA

ESSAY

CLICK HERE TO READ MINE, WILL'S AND TOM'S ESSAY :)

Austmerica?

Many people say that Australia is a unique and original country, one of a kind... and they are absolutely correct! 

However, in the early years of planning in Australia there were some significant influences that has made Australia what it is today. 

America is known as the "The Land of Opportunity" or "The Land of Freedom".  Whether it be their Hollywood stars dazzling the red carpet, their crazy antics or even their elections, America is recognised throughout the world.    

As we all know, one of the most well known planning 'experiments' is Australia's capital, Canberra.  The competition for the design of Canberra was held in 1911 and the prize was awarded to the Griffins (who were American) in 1912.  The architecturally inspired design featuring a geometrically planned landscape was heavily influenced by American district of Washington with its wide boulevards and grandeurs.  The development of Canberra was hindered because of the rise of the World Wars and The Great Depression, however this was the case for most of Australia.  

http://www.visabureau.com/media/4355316/australia-visa-us.jpg

As the reading states, after World War II there were many Australian cities reflecting an American ideal.  Struggling with development Australia took opportunities to reflect and admire other countries' planning ideals for inspiration.  

With the rise of new urbanism throughout Australia and the world urban design in terms of liveability, walkability, design and streetscape, compactness and community was rampant.  As Australian and American suburbs are very similar the two countries were undoubtedly exchanging and utilising each others ideas. 

Australia is one of the youngest countries in the world and since its development I believe it has adapted and created its own sense of style.  Most of the recognised cities within each state have its own identity, although Canberra is still trying to 'find its own'.  

There is no doubt that Australia has been influenced by one of the most powerful countries' in the world, but it has evolved and grown into its own skin nicely and uniquely.  

Austmerica - i don't think so. 

Value-Laden, Oxymoron and Utopia

Frankly... I am over studying different ideas (and I know we are studying theory), whether they be theoretical, conceptual or practical.  I must admit, I have enjoyed studying them and seeing theorists, planners and others different viewpoints, but ultimately, what I have learnt is that a village, town, city, region, nation, etc does not work if the people that reside there do not work. 

Susan S. Fanstein has the idea of 'the just city' and the two other concepts in this weeks reading are the communcative model and new urbanism. 

 

http://www.hurstville.nsw.gov.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/images/Multicultural%20group.jpg



Fansteins view of the communicative model proposes an extremely value-laden perspective and views the planner as an experiential learner possessing technocratic leadership and at most, providing information to participants.  Judith Innes commented that "what planners do most of the time is talk and interact" and that "this 'talk' is a form of practical, communicative action." Yes, planners do interact and talk, like most normal people but we do have valued opinions and the expertise to make correct judgements and decisions.  Community involvement is essential to planning, however when the planner is the communicator and mediator of the community, undoubtedly there are going to be more dominant people whether that be simply because of the size of their voice or alternatively their status in society. Unintentionally, there is always going to be people discluded from the decision making process. 



http://cherylkx.blogspot.com.au/2011_02_01_archive.html

New urbanism is probably one of my favourites as I am admittedly a lover of urban design. It is a model heavily focussed on development by architects and journalists and I would adore an architecurial and artsy place to live ... but I will criticise this ideology as creating a gorgeous place to live will not necessarily fix other issues within a town.  Oxymoron is the word to describe this; creating one thing to try and counteract another, creating a brilliant vibrant environment does not necessarily enhance the social aspect of a community.  Just like the saying goes 'happy wife, happy life... really?! 

As stated in the reading 'The movement is less convincing in its approach to social injustice'.  Harvey fears that 'the new urbanism can commit the same errors as modernism- of assuming that changing people's physical environment will somehow rake care of the social inequalities that warped their lives.' 

'The Just City' is pretty much a complete utopian city that has a strong link to political economics.  Fanstein focuses particularly on urban democracy, diversity and equity.  Her view is that a free market would be of best interest to communities, however, is handing over control to communities such a good idea? It would cause continuous growth and the community could become inundated and overwhelmed, therefore the idea of a free open market would have detrimental effects on the community in the long term.

So, back to the end of the second sentence of this blog... do cities work if the people in it don't?

Post your opinions :)

Developments or Paradigms?

http://www.b2binbound.com/blog/?Tag=paradigm%20shift

This weeks reading: Anglo-American Town Planning Theory since 1945: Three Significant Developments but no Paradigm Shifts evidently summed up the readings of previous weeks and the transformations throughout the decades in planning. 

Planners really have 'done it all'; from art to science to advocacy to 'bringing back style'.

Throughout these developments over the decades the argument in question is whether there have actually been any paradigm shifts?

Some class members agreed and other disagreed, agreeing that there have been significant developments and therefore changes in the shift of planning have been paradigms and others saying that although there has been developments that there hasn't been a completely NEW way of thinking and belief of planning, therefore there have been no paradigms. 

I believe that there has been exceptional transformation and revolutionary thinking within the realm of planning but I don't believe they have been 'big' enough to call them paradigms.

The planner as a designer was the first idea of planning and therefore institutions were critical in this area.  A scientific aspect of planning hit the scene in the late 1960's with rational process theorists providing an analyst and systematic type approach to planning.

The 1970's and 1980's brought a new role of the planner with a description using the words; facilitator, manager, communicator, mediator and networker.  Planners were now to be the 'advocates' as such, of planning but not actually have the authority to make the decisions themselves.

A shift in normative planning thought came about through modernist and post-modernist planning theories that not everything can be rationally explained and therefore enforced emphasis on architecture and human interaction throughout communities.

Ok... So... Evidently there has been major transformations in the way of thinking about planning and the theories about planning.  However, in terms of planner as designer the aesthetic aspect of planning has never been forgot about, it is still considered a major part of planning today.

In my opinion, all of these ideals and perspectives have collaborated to produce a developed, intricate and imaginative profession of planning. 

Going back to the week of 'Practitioners and the Art of Planning' I said that Art and Science compliment each other.  In this case, art, science, advocacy and what modernism and post-modernism provides, all contributes to the profession of planning. 

http://thedesigninspiration.com/fonts/where-science-and-art-break-even/

Therefore, I believe there has been no paradigms but there has been revolutionising development and creativity put into the profession of planning and there will continue to be innovation into the future.       

Is arguing the answer?

As quoted in the conclusion of the reading the approach outlined in this paper presents 'strategic spatial planning as a process of facilitating community collaboration in the construction of strategic discourse, in strategic consensus building'.  

There are different components of Professor Healey's Communicative Argumentative approach; reviewing, analysing, evaluating, inventing and developing new ideas and monitoring. 

This different and diverse approach endeavours to ideally, lead to a consensus through economic and social interactions and relationships.  Through this process direct community involvement is achieved, which aims to avoid marginalisation, recognise the diversity of opinions and include everyone.

Undoubtedly, the aim to include everyone in decision making is impossible. Someone is always being marginalised as their opinions are not being recognised. 

Whilst community involvement is a major aspect of planning, the presence and knowledge that comes from trained and educated planners is essential also.  It is problematic to gather a community and let them give their issues and opinions to each other to debate/argue about, without the input of professionals.

Therefore, is Healey's Communicative Argumentative approach really suitable and realistic? Is arguing the answer? I do not believe it is at all.  As seen in the video clip in Dan and Sarad's presentation, arguing creates uncertainty, confusion and down right squabble.

http://pcdn.500px.net/418266/01569cc60fc694b3fcd186744c0eb7030780eb02/4.jpg

I believe community engagement and involvement is imperative, however there must be the knowledge and education behind decisions.  Planners are trained for a reason and therefore are evidently more knowledgeable and have the experience to determine and evaluate important decisions for future planning.

What makes a city successful?

Contested Cities: Social Process and Spatial Form by David Harvey is an interesting article questioning where the category of 'urban' has disappeared to, why marginalisation is occurring and what makes a city unique.  David Harvey is a well-known geographer and a leading social theorist of international standing.

David Harvey emphasises the importance of thinking about cities in terms of processes rather than just things.  He views cities as sites of conflict based on race, ideology, gender and other social categories. He argues that processes are both shaped by time and place and shape time and place.

http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2008/10/what-makes-a-ci.html 

With the rise of the industrial revolution came urbanisation.  The ninetieth century was concerned with the rapid increase in urbanisation and therefore aimed to effectively utilise and plan for the urban world. Urbanisation was essentially the 'urban process' or 'urbanising process' each representing a link between the city and processes.  David Harvey identifies 'the city' as a 'thing-type' word and explains that once a thing is created, they have the habit of affecting the processes that constituted them.

Keeping 'urbanisation' and 'things' in mind, how does this affect social processes, what attributes make a 'thing' function? What makes a 'thing' unique?

Whilst the majority of regions are urbanised, there are still rural areas that have completely different wants and needs to that of an urbanised community.

A community is more than a group of people that reside in the same area; a community shares a sense of place, a set of common values and an important component of a city and a community is the interaction within the community.

The definition of the word community should not be able to actually define a community as all communities are different.  It is this definition of communities that is creating marginalisation within communities and different sectors of communities.  Yesterday Richard spoke about visiting São Paulo and mentioned the gated areas throughout the city which was a depiction of marginalisation, how the rich were divided from the poor and how this separated the city and communities immensely.

Melbourne is a successful interactive, socially and culturally diverse, vibrant and well planned city where there is a strong sense of togetherness.

However, what works for one city, may not work for another.  Therefore, people need to identify and create their own sense of place and make their city their own.