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.