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.