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.