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.