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.

Who's representing who?

Reading John Forester's article 'Planning in the face of conflict', makes planning sound like a extremely difficult job.  The different mediated-negotiation strategies outlined in the reading seem daunting and delicate.  

Whilst reading, all I could really think to myself was; do planners have to tiptoe around everyone, that is, neighbourhoods and developers?  Since we are mostly always in the middle of the community consultation, discussion, negotiation, development and finally, conflict, it seems planners have an interesting task of keeping the developers and the neighbourhoods on their good side.  

The reading concentrates on local land use conflict and the arguments evident between neighbourhoods and developers - where planners are the mediating-negotiators.  

The continuous debate of whether developers and neighbourhoods should meet or whether the ideas should be liaised by planners is no doubt a tricky situation.  When developers meet neighbourhoods and planners are there for negotiation there is a high chance of constant squabbling between developers and neighbourhoods which usually eventuates to zilch, nothing, no solution.  

I firmly believe that planners should essentially control the interaction between both parties.  They should be the initiators, organisers and mediating-negotiators that help the planning process systematically to avoid direct tension between developers and neighbourhoods. 

http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/section2.cfm

As we have been studying social and advocacy planning I do believe that there should be community consultation and it is the job of planners to make consultation an inviting and exciting opportunity for communities.  Dr Hu asked us if we had ever been involved in a community consultation and it occurred to be that I hadn't and that is because in the past I have been totally uneducated and uninformed - it is that simple... I didn't know!  And then the next question is; if there were community meetings and I did not attend, then who is representing me from my community?  Do they have the same opinions and views as I do? ... No of course they don't! Everyone has different concerns and opinions! If I was uneducated and uninformed then I am under the impression that there are many more people out there that did not or do not know, and therefore are not representing themselves.  

This is the task of the planner, to involve, engage and entice communities. 

Planners ARE the initiators, organisers and negotiators.

      

Together as one.

http://www.puzzlefolk.co.uk/catalog/products/humour/simpsons_citizens_750pc.htm

In the words of Arnstein: 'The idea of citizen participation is a little like eating spinach: no one is against it in principle because it is good for you'.

TRUE.  The authorities know that citizens should be involved but they don't necessarily want to give them resources and power.  So who should have the power?  This is the continuous topic of discussion, who, what, when, where and why?

In the context of the article, the civil rights movement throughout the 1960's ignited significant changes in social reform.  However, at the time, the wealthy prevailed and the less fortunate and minorities were considered irrelevant.  

The ladder of citizen participation is made up of three stages; non-participation, tokenism and citizen control.  So where are we sitting at the moment?  

I believe Australia should be placed within the Tokenism stage.  Although citizens have not been given full control there is evidently informing, consultation and placation.

A great example of consultation is the 'Time to talk: Canberra 2030' community engagement project.  It allowed communities to input their opinions, which were then turned into a comprehensive report outlining the wants of the community.  This was an excellent way to obviously; engage the community - it gave the people an opportunity to speak up and voice their opinions.      

This is a step in the right direction; giving the people a sense of belonging and contribution to their community.          

Undoubtedly, citizens can have major impacts on the influencing of decisions made by the authorities; but should they be given full power in the realm of planning?

The arguments surrounding this issue are that communities are not qualified or educated, and therefore are not considered "professionals".  However, only the people know what they truly want and desire, and who are we to say that they are unqualified, uneducated and unprofessional?  

Balance of technical, morals and values in Planning.

The movement initiated by Paul Davidoff in his famous 1965 article 'Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning' has become a required reading in most planning courses throughout the world.  Although the ideal is considered out dated today, Davidoff has undeniably influenced the planning profession immensely.

Paul Davidoff was known as a tireless advocate and dedicated a lot of his advocacy to the disadvantaged, minorities and low-income communities. 

This reading primarily concentrated on the needs of the people, advocating for the people and for the ideas of the people.  A planner as advocate would initially strive to seek clients that had compatible morals and values to therefore advocate for their true beliefs.  

Planning began to move away from being just technical and integrated social values and justice into the profession.  It concluded that everyone is entitled to a fair representation and deserves a voice.  

Pluralism in Planning was the second idea prosed by Davidoff and this explored gathering ideas from all different groups therefore giving them a voice and being able to discuss viable options for proposed plans.  

Amongst Davidoff's radical and revolutionising ideals he suggested that planners should be incorporating their values and morals into their profession.  This was a new notion that revolutionised the way that planners had previously thought and shaped the way in which they were taught. 

Planners of that era were encouraged to advocate for the disadvantaged in particular, as previously mentioned this was obviously a passion of Davidoffs.

http://www.generatepr.com.au/generatepr_community_consultation.html

Advocacy and pluralism is incorporated into planning today mainly through community consultation.  Giving communities a voice is a positive step forward in improving social welfare and the needs and wants of the people.  However, it is questioned whether the values and morals of planners should be integrated into plans as planners are ultimately out to benefit the communities, not their own beliefs.

What is the correct balance? To what extent, if any, should planners’ morals and values be embraced?   

We like to movement, movement.

This weeks reading ‘Modernism and Early Urban planning’ by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout was about the several influential movements that have ultimately shaped the entire profession of planning.

As the Great Depression emerged in the early 1930’s, planning issues changed from city plans, zoning, and traffic patterns to dealing with affordable housing and modeling transportation systems.  This then gave planners a larger scale to operate including; neighbourhood, city, region, state and nation.

Photo showing The Boathouse, Birkenhead Park, cheshirenow.co.uk

Central Park, New York, http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/central_park/

The Park Movement was the first response to the social dislocations and industrial urbanism, which was concerned with providing the poor and working class with healthy open spaces in heavily congested cities.  Joseph Paxton was engaged to lay out the first urban garden, complete with recreational areas, which was to be open to the public.  This park was opened in 1847 and is called ‘Birkenhead Park’.

However, Fredrick Law Olmsted led the way with his masterpiece creation of Central Park for the citizens of New York.  Not only did it provide open space and recreational facilities, it functioned as an essential part of the great Croton Reservoir system that provided fresh water to the whole of Manhattan.

Letchworth, http://static.nai.nl/regie/historisch/pix/letch_poster.JPG

The unified vision of reintegrating urban and rural - city and country, came from Ebenezer Howard.  Inspired by the Utopian theories, Howard wanted to create green-framed, planned, economically self-sufficient communities that comprised of proportionate precincts of residences, industry and agriculture.  Letchworth began construction in 1903 and became the first official garden city.  

The City Beautiful Movement that began in the 1890's was concerned with creating beautiful, spacious and orderly cities that contained healthy open spaces and showcased public buildings.  Following this movement was 'The City Scientific' which concentrated on the scientific aspects rather than the aesthetics of cities.  

In the early years of Modernism Le Corbusier was known as the prophet of a higher, later stage of modernism, which still seems futuristic today.  Frank Lloyd Wright was also highly influential but is approach to modernism was completely opposite to Le Corbusier. Wright was the prophet of middle-class urban flight and automobile-based sprawl suburbia.

Canberra embraced the advent of the automobile and created a city based on the garden city and city beautiful movements whilst also remaining a city of modernism.

The question is; what movement is next?
As we move towards post-modernism; technological, environmental, economical and social aspects of the world continue to evolve rapidly.  The future is uncertain and therefore, what lies ahead is unknown.  What do you think?    

Art AND Science.

http://www.magicfountain.net/images/LOGO.png

Parlez-Vous Francais?
No, I do not speak french.
And no, we are not talking about the Australian dance trio.

We are talking about the extremely topsy-turvy history of planning issues since the 1930's, and how over time, they have transformed dramatically.

When reading 'Practitioners and the art of Planning' by Eugenie Ladner Birch this week, there was a prominent conflict of art versus science.

When people think of the word 'Science' they begin to think of what is matter of fact, knowledge, systematic and simply what makes the world go round.

Art has an extremely broad definition and can be interpreted in many different ways.  When examining art, people tend to be subjective rather than objective.  Peoples views can differ depending simply on the way that they view the world surrounding them.  Art brings together the aesthetic value of cities, creates vibrancy and a realm of unique thought and expression.

Planning has changed and adapted accordingly throughout the past 80 years, complying with changes in social, environmental and economic issues.  Planning is ultimately able to adapt to the new and changing challenges that face our world today and prepare for the uncertain future.

It is evident from the constant upgrading and changing of the famous 'Green Book' (featured in the reading) that planning issues are constantly changing, evolving and revolutionising.

So, is urban planning a science or an art?

I believe it is a combination of both elements.

Lets face it, they compliment each other. The science involves the rational questions; Who? Where? When? And art answers the What? and Why?

The science lays the foundations and the art creates and explores the ideas and thoughts, to ideally create something extraordinary and beautiful.

The stars are the art of the sky.
The icing is the art of the cake.
The glitter is the art of the glue.
Urban planners are the art (creators) of our world.

For the people.

Who shall plan, for what purposes, in what conditions, and by which devices?

What is the future without planners? Planners are continuously evolving this fast-paced growing world, utilising skills and knowledge to better the people.  The world is their playground; their canvas and the people are their on-going motivation and focus. 

Mr. Smith and Mr. Mill commonly share a different understanding of the processes and purposes of planning… They say: Financial and administrative burdens on the economy? Competitive markets the only markets?

I don’t think so.

Planning is a necessity of life.  The government is the primary source of funds for planning projects. Without the government intervening, projects do not begin or finish, let alone get looked at.  Which then means society is burdened as their needs and wants begin to play a role in the scheme of things.

The government and society are supposed to work together, building guidelines and foundations, which can be utilised on both levels.  I do, however, agree that planning can be used to counteract externalities and issues involving prisoner’s dilemma conditions.     

I like the pluralist approach! Functional and compromising.

Informed decision-making equals improved decisions.  Educating communities of future plans and initiatives is a positive step forward in achieving the publics’ valued opinions and this is the only flaw of this model.  The government exists only as an enforcement of the guidelines although foremost, benefitting business and corporations.  The public needs to be apart of the whole process so that both the public and the government are informed. 

This proves that planning is never ever a one-man band.  There are always many strings attached and if those strings are interfered with, then there is disruption and disconnection. 

Regardless of these planning approaches and arguments; planning is about the people, making the people feel apart of the bigger picture, a part of something new and exciting, and essentially about pleasing the people.

So…

Who shall plan? We shall plan – the planners of the present and future

For what purposes? To better the people and the constantly growing world

In what conditions? Using guidelines and foundations enforced

By which devices? For the purpose of the society and future generations

Number 1.

Good afternoon fellow planners.

Let's see how I go with this unusual, confusing new technology of blogging.

Ciao for now
Jess :)