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?