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 :)