Pat and Adam write an Essay

 Introduction 

 

Climate change remains the biggest threat to the modern way of life and as such planning for future disasters remains the top priority. Cities in Australia are built primarily from the American concepts of sprawling, car orientated cities, however, with the looming threat of peak oil and also the documented contribution that cars have on climate change, it is necessary to transform our wide cities to more compact, environmentally friendly cities. The recent change to the Canberra plan reflects such an ambition, however, the current transport model remains a hindrance to the reduction in car trips in the city. The Canberra government has promised to introduce a light rail system in hope or reducing the community’s reliance on the car. Such a scheme is reflective of much community consultation and commitment to the new urbanist style of planning. 

Context

 

Urban planning has morphed and evolved since the turn of the 20^th century and has seen many movements come and go over time as they become obsolete, such as the Corbusier inspired modernism and the Garden City movement conceived by Ebenezer Howard, although, elements of these planning philosophies still apply to a degree as a new wave of postmodernism takes hold. Planners today are trying to move away from the car dominated city that has plagued the developed world for much of the last century and move back to a public transport oriented and compact city which seems logical in the face of crippling environment decline through the threats of global warming and even overpopulation in some areas. Canberra, the capital of our nation, is especially plagued by these problems and one needs to look no further than the bushfires in Duffy in 2003 to see just how Mother Nature can wreak havoc when the climate takes a turn for the unusually hot in the face of a severe drought and El Nino.

There is consensus that climate change is happening although the extent of the current damage we have already caused is not yet known. Evidence confirms that changes are happening and the carbon dioxide emissions of cars is but one of the prime causes. Some small steps have been taken to ameliorate this severe problem with the outlawing of tetra-ethyl lead in favour of an unleaded blend but even then, one needs to look no further than car dependent cities such as Los Angeles, Mexico City and even Sydney on a bad day to just see the layer of smog sitting in the sky above the city to see that things still are not perfect. Not only does this reduce visibility, it is also a major public health issue often being attributed to respiratory illness. Thankfully, being a city of roughly 350000 Canberra does not yet have this problem despite the extreme dependence on cars to commute.

Climate change

 

As the contemporary age of planning dawns on Canberra, several new initiatives are starting to take place. The increased densification in Canberra is mostly due to a new plan; the Canberra spatial plan, and with it comes potentially new vulnerabilities against the threat of climate change. 

The theories of anthropogenic induced climate change is rarely up for debate and as such we are beginning to see the effects it can cause. The 2003 Canberra bush fire was one of the city’s worst disasters, coming off the back of prolonged periods of drought, the fires swept through native grasslands to engulf a nearby pine forest and eventually reached the suburbs of Canberra. As a result of this four people lost their lives with a further 492 injured and some 500 houses destroyed (Camilleri et al 2010). The events of 2003 came under intense scrutiny with several investigations in to the readiness of Canberra to be able to prepare for such an event. As such, a taskforce and two inquiries were initiated in order to understand what went wrong. Unfortunately, there has been resounding scientific evidence to indicate that this kind of scenario is only set to increase in frequency and intensity and as such it is imperative that we plan our cities to best mitigate these effects. 

Planning has evolved much over the last 100 years. From the design orientated planning era, to the social focused modernist era and now in to the beginnings of the post-modernist time of planning. Each era has evolved and developed to manage concerns that were prevalent during the time. The Parks movement was started in response to the appalling living conditions that came with the industrial revolution and urbanisation, the Garden City and City Beautiful movements were an attempt to create awe inspiring cities in a time of increased global connectivity, and the social planning movements addressed the concerns that society was increasing being ignored in planning decisions. However, climate change is set to take a heavy toll on ill-prepared cities, and as such, a holistic and tactful planning methodology will be required.

Americanization of Australian planning

 

Australia and America both being new world countries and relatively nascent countries when compared to their colonial predecessor, England, share many similarities ranging from culture to urban planning. Americanization in Australia’s brand of urban planning is evident for all to see and has been since the turn of the 20^th century (Freestone 2004).  Being planned by the American born Walter Burley Griffin, one would expect Canberra to have a bit of a ‘yankee’ flavour to it, however Burley Griffin’s plan was not received with much acclaim and fanfare (depending on who you listen to). The plan suffered a barrage of criticism at the time it was drafted and was not fully adhered to due to a variety of reasons, the primary one being the onset of a world war resulting in the plan’s replacement with the well-known Y plan. At the time of the plan’s conception, Burley Griffin was forced to endure a whirlwind of savage criticism against his polycentric plan and this ultimately led to him walking out on the project in 1921, as such, the city was left in its embryonic stage to grow very slowly until the 50’s came along (Freestone 2004). Canberra’s long reaching arms of suburbia and strip malls in locations such as Belconnen and Woden are testament to the American influences that are rife in Australian towns and cities, although, due to its small size, Canberra has managed to avoid the freeways that are all too often clogged and congested arteries that frequently bring Sydney and Melbourne to a standstill and instead bears a long sweeping parkway system that acts as the conduits that connect the city together keeping its heart pumping. This parkway system however has led to an overwhelming reliance on cars for transport (Freestone 2004). Although some people use buses, the majority choose to drive their own car to get around the city. Fortunately for those of a more two wheel persuasion, Canberra’s cycle tracks are the envy of the nation and one can ride from Gungahlin to Tuggeranong on a path dedicated specifically to bikes without the distraction of a beeping car, although if you intend to ride your bike to work like a small minority of Canberra’s residents do, you will still have to ride on the road which have now been modified to include a bike lane to minimize the possibility of accidents.

Urban sprawl is a hallmark of the American post-war city and the whole concept was conceived due to the advent of the private car, enabling people to live further and further away from the central business district of a city and retain an element of pseudo-country living in the 20^th century invention of the suburb and still be within commuting distance to the big smoke.  The Australian dream which entails every family owning their own home with a backyard or even on a block of land has contributed to this phenomenon. More specifically, it focused on everyone having the ‘ownership of a detached house (often single storey) on a quarter acre suburban block, surrounded by a garden, which featured in the back a Hills Hoist and a barbeque.’ These principles have led to Australia’s extremely low density cities which has in turn led to urban sprawl.  

Canberra’s sprawl can be attributed to simply the date of its development. With an extremely slow rate of growth up until the 50’s which by that time Canberra hadn’t even reached a population of 20000 and this is when the National Capital Planning Authority was set up to oversee the development of Canberra from a churlish backwater town into a capital the whole nation could be proud of. This commission decided to implement the well-known and now discontinued Y Plan to regulate the development of the city and was originally planned to send the arms of Canberra sprawling beyond the original borders of the ACT (Freestone 2004).

The cons to urban sprawl far outnumber the pros , the main con being that the whole model is wildly unsustainable and is responsible for environmental maladies such as declining air and water quality, destruction and displacement of wildlife, and the one most relevant to Canberra; car dependency. The recently approved light rail development is seen as key to alleviating these car related strains and also preserve the endearing bush aspect of the city. Light rail is the perfect piece of infrastructure as it will encourage developers and planners alike to look towards densification, especially around the stations and interchanges instead of furthering the reach of the metropolitan area with new developments like Molonglo. Such added density to key centres such as Gungahlin and Civic will do wonders to improve Canberra’s perceived dullness and lack of character.

Combatting Sprawl

 

There is one problem that one will find with urban consolidation and as many have seen in Sydney and Melbourne, the prices of inner urban areas reach some astronomical levels. Such situations are caused by an increasing demand for townhouses closer to the city which can unfortunately result in higher densification occurring in unintended areas that can be quite far away from the urban core due to lower costs. Despite Canberra pledging to move towards a denser method of urban development, there are still plans to continue developing the borough of Molonglo west of the city and a yet unnamed area to the east of the airport which is currently occupied by a pine plantation.

Like every city in Australia, the characterised ‘Not In My Back Yard’ advocates (or NIMBYs) tend to have excessive influence on what happens in terms of development and they have come to oppose everything that goes up in Canberra using the classic argument of tall buildings spoiling views and the angles of sunlight etc. Much to the dismay of many, these individuals often get their way and promising developments are stymied and this kind of sometimes myopic thinking is often the worst case scenario in the long run and NIMBYs still tend to oppose anything higher than a townhouse. Although not to be deterred, a look around Belconnen’s core today will demonstrate that developers have seen approval and construction of medium rise apartments get underway which is a big leap in the right direction for this city.

In today’s environmentally concerned sustainably managed world, urban sprawl cannot be allowed to continue at its previous runaway rates. That is why cities ranging from San Francisco to Canberra are embracing a model called the ‘compact city’ which features growth boundaries to limit the sprawl but also a focus on mass transit such as light rail and buses (Dantzig 1973). This means the Y Plan has been modified since its conception in the 60’s and no longer is sprawl into New South Wales a priority but more consolidating in the already established suburbs and developments such as Kingston Foreshore attest to this more compact philosophy. This lends from another American principle that limits the distance a certain city or town is permitted to spread. Urban growth boundaries, as they are known, are required by law in the states of Oregon, Washington and Tennessee. The 21^st century is the century of sustainability and green living in the face of looming environmental danger and urban growth boundaries limiting development will do a world of wonders until the electric car becomes a feasible solution. However, one would have to remember that electric cars are powered by power plants which, in Australia are of a coal fired majority. Sadly, it will take most of the century to complete the shift to a truly green society and we can only hope that by then the environmental price we pay is not too excessive.

New Urbanism 

 

New Urbanism is founded on the ideals of ‘human sized’ cities where services and facilities are accessible by walking distance. In terms of climate change, such a scheme can be viewed as beneficial as the compact nature of a city would significantly reduce the population’s reliance on cars. As previously mentioned, the sprawling nature of Canberra is somewhat contradictory to the notion of a sustainable city. The vast distances that some residents commute to work is a direct consequence of the urban sprawling model and without a reliable public transport system, will result in many utilising private cars to travel that distance. With the car representing 15% of national greenhouse emission (ABS 2010), it is necessary to reduce such public reliance on private transport and plan cities to be more compact with adequate public transportation. In some regard, Canberra has adopted these principles and the new Canberra Spatial plan highlights the commitment to increasing the infill in Canberra’s centres. However, with already established large blocks in much of the city area, there will be much needed cooperation between developers and the community to continue.

Community planning 

 

With the popularity of communicative and community based planning thanks to the likes of Paul Davidoff in the 1960s (1965), there has been a fundamental shift in the way the planning role is perceived. Once primarily based on design elements, planning became more engaged with the theoretical social cohesion and the understanding of human interactivity. Such an undertaking was in response to the rising social change in the form of global civil rights movements, the fight for equality amongst peers naturally penetrated the realms of planning and enacted fundamental change in the way that housing estates were constructed (Davidoff 1965). It was during this time of increasing community power that planners began to realise the importance that the public’s voice had in planning and as such began to incorporate methods of how best to invite broader participation. However, the process has faced issues in terms of unqualified individuals holding developers to ransom. In the context of climate change, there is still much inconsistencies in a community’s knowledge of the effects and changes they must make in order to combat this threat, as such, it may be possible that a community is never fully aware of how much impact they have on the environment and may feel less empathetic to the cause in terms of mitigation. Due to the increasing amounts of climate change mitigation being planned by government sectors, some may consider these measures to be paternalistic, however, such changes are made to ‘future proof’ the community. Canberra has faced growing issues in this regard, primarily in the form of the number of residents who choose to drive. Even though the public transport system is scrutinised frequently, many residents do reside near major bus routes yet still make the choice to drive. However, the recent government announcement of a light rail system stems from years of public consultation in order to understand what mode of transport the community would prefer. Although the plan is considered a gamble, if successful, it would highlight the Canberra governments optimism in community based planning.

Market planning 

 

As planning continues to discover methodologies of efficiency, questions have been raised on how best to facilitate planning decisions. Susan Fainstein’s (2000) work on the ‘Just City’ points towards the neoliberal notion that the market is the best institution to ensure the efficient distribution of resources. The argument is that the prolonged debates and concessions that are experienced in the communicative planning model are disturbing the planning process and stifling progress. Likewise, Fainstein argues that the New Urbanism movements are doing nothing to alleviate the social inequalities that communities are concerned about. Instead, it is argued that the New Urbanism strive for social diversity through stringent design principles is flawed as planning for diversity is actually an oxymoron. As such, to create a city that best represents the views and desires of the inhabitants, the capital marketplace is the best method of conception. In Canberra, there has been some demonstrated success with such an endeavour with power companies investing in to renewable and green energies. One such example is the recent announcement that Fotowaitio Renewable Ventures will be developing a solar farm in Royalla which will become Australia’s largest solar plant (Towell 2012). Although such progress is positive, general consensus remains that market approaches to climate change have been slow and as such, require some level of government or community intervention to force adaptive measures.

Conclusion 

 

Planning history in Australia is heavily influenced by the American style and the introduction of the car. As such, many of the cities at the time were planned to sprawl with little insight in to the transportation requirements of the future. Such a legacy has affected Canberra’s mitigation abilities to the very real threat of climate change due to the heavy residential reliance on the private car. There have been new initiatives undertaken to alleviate such concerns, however, with public transport perceived as the characteristic of sustainable cities, Canberra is faced with a large financial investment to oversee such a venture. 

References

 

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010, Emissions by Sector, Measures of Australia’s Progress 2010

Camilleri, P Healy, C Macdonald, E Nicholls, S Sykes, J Winkworth, G Woodward, M 2010, Recover from bushfires: The experience of the 2003 Canberra bushfires three years after, Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care, Vol. 8, Issue 1

Dantzig, G Saaty, T 1973, Compact City: Plan for a Liveable Urban Environment

Davidoff, P 1965, Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning, Journal of the American Insitute of Planners, Vol. 31, Issue 4, p331-8

Fainstein, S 2000, New Directions in Planning Theory, Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 35

Freestone, R 2010, The Americanization of Australian Planning, Journal of Planning History, Vol. 3

Towell, N 2012, 50-hectar solar farm planned for Tuggeranong, The Canberra Times, Sep 5 2012

Americanisation of planning

Being a relatively young nation, Australia often lends its municipal design to ideals and techniques from foreign influences. The Victorian style buildings that dot the streets of inner city Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne, the large green botanic gardens, the long sweeping boulevards, and the striking civic buildings are all but examples of such influence. Arguably, in the urban planning context, one influence that is regarded above all others is notably an American one.

The original competition to design Canberra in 1912 was won by an American; Sir Walter Burley Griffin, and the successful City Beautiful movement is encapsulated almost perfectly in its concentric circles and numerous civic buildings. Since its inception, Canberra has been regarded somewhat of an urban planning playground lending itself to administration experimentation. The changing face of the Canberra scape gave way to the Y-Plan; a design based on a group of self-sufficient centres linked by arterial roads. Such a design was born during an era where the car was booming and allowed for the average citizen to reside some distance from the city centres, enjoying the suburban lifestyles that was once confined to the wealthy. However, the explosion of this new form of personal transport saw an even bigger increase in infrastructure spending, and following the simultaneous trend within the United States, saw the focus primarily on roads. Unfortunately, this lack of insight has resulted in much of the problems that Canberra faces today such as exaggerated urban sprawl.

In some regards, such design decision can be forgiven as the intensification of urbanisation since the end of World War 2 was experienced at unprecedented levels. Globalisation contributed greatly to this scenario and it was only natural for Australia to utilise the concepts from the facilitator of such an achievement who heavily promoted the production of cars.

In some regards, Australia has started to mould the planning theories for itself. The invigoration of new urbanism highlights the requirement for denser social centres. America has provided much influence over the years but as Australia begins to decouple its reliant on cars, its own design will begin to be noticed.

New Directions in Planning

If there is one thing that urban planning seems to suffer from, it is the utopian ideals that emerge with each passing decade. Although the relentless pursuit of being the renowned academic in the field has contributed greatly to the evolution of the planning role, I would argue that it isn’t all that hard to do so when dealing with a responsibility still very much in its infancy stage. Susan Fainstein attempts to tie the last 100 years of planning together and repackage it in to a theory suited towards the modern capitalist society we live in today. However, she does so with some critical analysis of other popular theories in planning.

The communicative method of planning stems from the grassroots ideals whereby the community should ultimately be the drivers of change and progression within their neighbourhood, without it, planning appears nothing more than a top down agenda of a paternalistic regime. Fainstein argues that with this model come consequences of prolonged formalities often resulting in uneducated and value laden obsessions on behalf of community members. However, as an advocate for democratic planning, Fainstein should understand that the fundamental rule of democracy is the voice of all should be heard.

The second theory that Fainstein scrutinises is new urbanism, a revival of the art of good place making promoting walk-ability and mixed use cities. Ultimately Fainstein argues that the new urbanism goal of planning for diversity is somewhat of an oxymoron, as diversity is spontaneous and evolves on its own. However, I would argue that good place making can act as a catalyst for diversity as promoting a tolerant and easy to live city would entice communities to live in an area which would invite all kinds of demographics. Fainstein also disputes that new urbanism can unintentionally result in the construction of exclusive neighbourhoods which would degrade the original ambition of creating socially inclusive societies. I believe such issues are resultant from developer ambition and land use conflicts, not so much the theory itself.

Finally, Fainstein promotes her own ideal of planning: The Just City. Very heavily inspired by the current capitalist model, the Just City promotes the laissez faire ideal of market control. Essentially, the free market can conform and construct a city to meet the needs of the residents within it. Additionally, an open market model would allow for economic growth and prosperity which, Fainstein argues, is essential for achieving successful and continual planning outcomes. However, it is important to note that Fainstein does not seem to address the ‘limits to growth’ concern instead arguing that unregulated growth is paramount to a city’s prosperity. Any economist would agree with this sentiment however, this does raise the important question of sustainability.

With growing evidence of the negative consequences of exponential economic growth on the planet, I would argue that Fainstein’s theory is contradictory to the pursuit of ecological sustainability and therefore cannot constitute as a viable principle in which to plan by. Saying this, I do think the market does have a role in achieving planning outcomes, however, handing over full control to the open market may result in greater long term harm than good.

Planning and the Paradigm shift

It is interesting to consider whether or not urban planning has experienced Thomas Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm shift in one form or another. There has undoubtedly been a consistent level of evolution within the role and practice of urban planners, as a reflection over the last 100 years of urban planning history would surely attest to.

Originally, the role of an urban planner was not unlike that of an architect, albeit on a much larger scale. The responsibilities and required knowledge base grew exponentially with the community rise and strive for social equity and equalities of the post world war II era which loaned itself to a re-birthing of the planners role. No longer was a planners focus centred solely on design and form, instead a social dimension would now begin to take precedence raising an important question; how do we plan for social equality? The answers to this question are severely limited when utilising a limited set of tools, thus the planner is required to branch out and encompass the methodologies of new fields of knowledge. It is here when the planners role changes from that of a designer, and incorporates social science leading to the role of an analyst, bringing a scientific element to the field. However, social problems were approached under the premise that society operated like a machine, somewhat devoid of an underlying human element. Years of formulated, stagnant planning witnessed the frustration amongst communities develop in to the demand for input in to the planning decisions being made for them.

Grassroots movements saw some planning input given to the community which reversed the traditional top down approaches. With now so many stakeholders having the opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions in to a planning project, the planner has again changed their role to that of a facilitator. The mediation between government interests, private companies, community members and other stakeholders has created many new theories in regards to how planning is to progress.

I would say there has been a paradigm shift in the role of a planner, most notably the change from a designer to something more. The incorporation of social aspects has re envisioned the profession and moved it from the realms of design in to the philosophical. Understanding how people work and interact has become a fundamental desire of the planner as they strive to create a successful human environment. Obviously there is still much that is not known and as such, I believe the future holds many exciting opportunities for the planning profession and society in which it serves. 

Collaborative Planning

Community involvement is the foundation for post modernist theories in planning. But the idealism and pragmatic approaches have produced little in practical examples leaving theories as just, well, theories. It appears to be that the last decade or so has produced a lot of thought provoking articles on how planning can be improved, and much of it is focused on the involvement of community or grass roots planning. However, is this really attainable in modern society? Does community involvement hinder the planning process or rather progress it? Is it too hard to involve everyone in the process for logistical reasons? Are such theories merely pipe-dreams?

An important fact that needs to be considered is the time that these articles were released, primarily the 80s and 90s. Taking the timeframe in to context, it is easy to observe such opportunity with an increasing sense of pessimism. But I think we are reading in to such theories with the same mindset that existed when these articles were written, much has changed since then and I believe we have new tools available to realise such ideas.

The internet has been one of the most revolutionary tools of the 21^st century and has connected the community in ways never before possible. Such technology can be utilised to bring a community together to discuss planning issues and involve a wide range of people in a debate. A publically accessible website, with a list of planning propositions which can be commented on, or an open forum to exchange personal planning ideas could be an enabler of the much discussed grass roots planning. It would cut the logistical costs and time of community discussion and would ensure a continual flow and updating of information, as opposed to the Canberra 2030 survey.

It appears that there are many people who would like to force a transgression of planning in to new and revolutionary areas. I believe anything is possible, but in order to do so there needs to be more creativity and ingenuity within the planning scholar community to manifest ideas in to the realms of practicality

Contested Cities

The human strive for a sense of community can determine where and how long we live in a particular area. Although there are those who reside in areas for the sole purpose of commuting to work or other activities, ultimately the homely ambience of an area is often attributed to the collection of ideal characteristics the neighbouring residents possess. This then raises an important question, does our localised sense of community create a social segregation between ourselves and the ‘outsider’? What has caused such an issue to develop?

The notion of ‘militant particularism’; the localised radical movement of a community towards a particular issue or set of goals, can be observed as a reason for the emergence of disconnected communities. The seemingly constant negativity displayed toward progressive planning and development can highlight a community’s desire to withdraw from the changing world around them as the constant promise of creative ‘fixes’ to local issues has resulted in grand designs with little or no substance and often leaves the same social issues that existed before. In a societal sense, the maintaining of the status quo can be viewed as a desirable yet overly ambitious goal.

Ebenezer Howard’s garden city and the more recent New Urbanism movements have promoted design elements as the saving grace of community liveability. Condensing the city in to a walkable human sized environment is designed to create a greater sense of community. But planning should not solely be centred on the design aspects, in fact, it can be argued from an emergence of literature that it has recently moved far from it. It is imperative to observe the city beyond a collection of objects and ‘things’ and rather examine it as a fluid and dynamic process. The inability to do so results in static reflection on society itself and therefore fails to create an appreciation for the cities human element.

Conflict in Planning

Planning and conflict go hand in hand. The endless feuds between a community and a developer often leave a sense of pessimism surrounding the achievement of a positive outcome. So why does this happen? Surely a community must understand the need for their area to progress with a changing society; to modernise and diversify, while the developer must appreciate a community’s concerns for the potential of their neighbourhood to spiral out of control and become the next expansion of the soulless concrete jungle that is the city. But this is not how it has always been. Indeed, planners did somewhat enjoy a period of paternalistic planning environments whereby government arms would create a plan with little thought in to the social repercussions it would result in. Faced with an ever increasing sense of domination, communities naturally wanted to have their say.

In times where a community now has a voice and, arguably, an important influence in planning decisions, the planner must now convene on matters of escalating conflicts between the community and the developer. As the developer strives for economic advantage and market access with their ideal progression (or exploitation) of public resource, the local community will often feel threatened and endeavour to have their surrounds remain the same, or progress in their own image. 

The rhetoric used within the development and government world can often seem confusing and alien to the average community member. Therefore, the planner is available to consult with the community, to explain in detail the planning boundaries and regulation that exists for both themselves and the developer. I believe this is an important role to exist as the community needs to be informed if they ultimately are to be affected. But I wonder, with the plethora of other roles the planner seemingly posesses, should a community liaison be one of them?

Climbing the ladder of participation

It seems that the 1960s was an era of much change within existing social structures, demographics and political power, and that seems to be the underlying concept between much of the reform and our recent class discussions; the balance of power. Indeed the even distribution of power has its merits, it allows us to have our say, control our lives and have our freedom, but should this ideology extend to the realms of planning decisions?

Extending on the theories of Advocacy and Pluralism in planning, ‘A ladder of citizen participation’ by Sherry Arnstein examines the role of the community and their level of engagement in the planning process. This is achieved through the simplified ‘eight rungs’ of participation ranging from nonparticipation, to tokenism and finally citizen control. Citizen participation can help provide information, knowledge and skills from various backgrounds, can improve the desired outcomes, create a sense of community ownership on the outcomes and generate agreement over solutions. With such a simple utopian notion in mind, it is interesting to ask where Australia sits on such a ladder. Even in such a highly developed country, I believe the answer is still determined by who you are.

Unfortunately, poor and disadvantaged citizens would undoubtedly have their voices drowned out by the affluent and politically influential in traditional styles of community consultation. However the internet and social media have acted as catalysts, broadening participation rates and increasingly have a sizeable influence in governing decisions. However, here lies the question, does the broader community have the imagination, experience or insight required to plan the society around them? This question is purely rhetorical as every community is different, but it is a question that slips in to the minds of many. With the move towards citizen control, planners should decide if they prefer to dismiss the contribution from the community or whether they intend to work with communities in helping them realise their ideas. It would seem to me that the role of the planner is still evolving, a reflection of the progression of modern society.

Advocacy and Pluralism

Advocacy and Pluralism in planning was a ground breaking concept to emerge from America in the 1960s. Riding off the backs of the American civil rights movement, the concept was centred on the notion of breaking down the segregation that was embedded in planning practices. Paul Davidoff was the person who started the movement, and although in today’s modern society the idea can be considered ‘out of date’, there is no denying that it revolutionised the path that planners follow today.

Davidoff introduced two interesting ideas with his paper. Firstly, the planner as an advocate was an attempt to inspire amongst the planners of the time to examine their values and ascertain the ones that they believe are right. Then with those values, seek out employers who would have the same so that the planner could truly advocate for what they believed in. At the time, advocacy was considered adversarial; at least two parties would need to contend and advocate for their side of the story, supposing the community, or those affected could be likened to a jury and vote on the best idea.  

The second idea that Davidoff introduced was pluralism is planning. This can be considered the foundation for progressive community planning as it exists today. Although Davidoff’s idea did not engage the community directly per se, it was designed for the engagement with community representatives, somewhat keeping up the civil and professional demeanour of the time. There were hints of community involvement in the planning process however, it did not venture far from the ‘unitary’ or top down model of planning that was the focus of much disdain.

There has never been as much focus on the social aspects of planning as there is today and Davidoff’s article does raise an interesting question, are planner’s value free or value laden? It is almost impossible for anyone to be devoid of acquiring values throughout their life and it does beg to question whether such values can reflect in their planning ideas. However, questioning whether a planner does have values and whether they should have values can result in two different answers. After all, the planner should be planning for the good of the community, not themselves.

Planning from the past

Urban development has experienced a spectrum of change since its inception as a profession in the 19^th century. Technology, social demographics and globalisation opened up new ideas and concepts which saw much experimentation.

The industrial revolution introduced an influx of people in to the cities as the regional population migrated for work and, presumably, a better life. However, elevated congestion and the reduction in sanitation in residential areas quickly resulted in an explosion of disease and social dislocation. In attempt to pull the people out of the degrading situation, the parks movement was born. The creation of a natural urban setting was a monumental relief to the continuous establishment of factories and warehouses. There are no finer examples of this than Victoria Park in London, Central Park in New York and Bois de Boulogne in Paris. However, there was something more than parks required for improved public health and wellbeing.

Bois de Boulogne was born in the parks movement

Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City could be seen as the earliest attempt of integrating sustainability in to urban design. The plan envisaged a reintegration of urban and rural settings with small populations surrounded by farmland and countryside. The cities would be entirely self sufficient with public gardens, tree-lined boulevards, hospitals and parks. The city would also be connected to neighbouring cities via rail lines and canals. Although sound in theory, the plan was never fully realised on the scale Howard would have preferred. Today, it sounds almost utopian.

Welwyn Garden City 

City Beautiful was the next movement to come of age. The designs were focused on grand civic and neoclassical buildings. It would inspire awe amongst the population and be somewhat of an expression of capitalism. The strong axial arrangements and public buildings of the movement can be found in Canberra’s design; it is probably one of the best examples of the era.

Washington DC is a fine example of the City Beautiful movement

City Beautiful sparked somewhat of a ‘bigger is better’ mentality in terms of planning. Whether it is Frank Lloyd Wright’s sprawling city ideology or Le Corbusier’s city of towering skyscrapers, there was a relentless pursuit of form and efficiency. At some point we have lost the reason as to why we plan cities; for the people. As such, planning needs to be reduced back to a scale that does not leave the average citizen feeling dwarfed by the height of width of a city. This kind of thinking will perhaps be at the forefront of the next stage of ideologies. It will be the Post Modern age of urban planning.

The art of planning.

http://artstyleonline.com/tag/abstract-art/page/4/

Ask anyone what their favourite city is and you will have a multitude of answers. Examine these closely and you will most likely begin to discover a trend; they are cities which either have character, are well connected, embody a ‘vibe’, and are full of lovely people or evoke some kind of emotion. Indeed everyone will have their opinion because, like art, the distinguishing quality is subjective. So, if a city can be art, are urban planners the artists?

Reflecting on the role of an urban planner does not conjure romantic images of artistic talent nor insightful philosophy. Instead, we perceive someone who studies land use policies, development controls, government regulations and economic budgets. However, urban planners extend artistic merit beyond the realms of aesthetics. It could be argued that the ability to incorporate community participation amongst their surroundings in itself is art primarily due to the fact that it is neither rational nor reasonable. Similarly, transportation, public spaces and liveability, are all areas which command some insight in to the human psyche. But then again, are these simply slipping in to the realms of science?

It is no secret that science has an important undertone in planning decisions. It tells us where, what and how much we can build. It accelerates society through transitional phases of technological ingenuity. It improves our health, it changes our demographics, it connects us and it powers our homes. However, there is one fundamental building block that these feats all have in common: creativity. Indeed this is also the most important trait an urban planner can have in order to assist in society’s progression.

Although aesthetics do assist in a city's visual appeal, a truly successful city relies on the implementation of social cohesion and foresight. It would seem that art and science go hand in hand and due to the pluralist nature of the urban planner, it is nothing more than an advantage. 

Arguments for and against planners

Richard Klosterman’s 1985 article entitled ‘Arguments for and Against Planning’ paints an interesting picture of the state of urban planning in the 80’s. So much was the public despair with the profession that it was seen as an extension of the arm of control of government. Interestingly, liberation through neo libertarian market freedom was seen as the best option of tearing away the oppression of left wing leaders.

The 1980’s saw government direction from two liberal based global leaders; Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Both world leaders introduced sweeping economic reform focused on market de regulation and laissez-faire based policy. Considering the era, and change being experienced, it is no doubt that Klosterman would have been influenced by such events which may have led to his economic based arguments surrounding urban planning.

However, many of the arguments that Klosterman brings up have little relevance in today’s world but it is interesting to see how much society’s issues and, consequently, focus has changed since then.

The 1990s and 2000s saw an increasing global interest in to several global changes that have since required the use of urban planners; changes to social demographics, national security, transport infrastructure, renewable energies and globalisation have all accelerated at unprecedented levels. This has resulted in to ever increasing levels of government involvement and investment in to issues that the populous has been concerned with; all needing urban planners.

But undoubtedly, the biggest change that our society faces today is climate change. Government policy has shifted to ways to mitigate its effects which has been heavily reliant on urban planners; coastal sea level rise, increased risk of fire, drought and flood, increased adverse health effects, and effects on public transport have all been seen as immediate concerns with the future.

So it would seem that instead of thinking of arguments against urban planners we should be thinking of why there are not more of them. After all, they are now the ones that are protecting us against an uncertain future.

The blog is live

The first exercise of the week is to create a blog for future informative and thought provoking reflective responses on classic theory in planning.
We shall see how it goes!